New Member

The following Member took and subscribed the Oath required by law:
Louie French, for Old Bexley and Sidcup.

Lindsay Hoyle: Just to let everybody know, he is going to be joining the all-party parliamentary rugby league group. [Laughter.] Well done, Louie.

Oral
Answers to
Questions

Education

The Secretary of State was asked—

EBacc: Social Mobility and Justice

Nick Gibb: If he will make an assessment of the contribution of the introduction of the EBacc to social (a) mobility and (b) justice.

Nadhim Zahawi: I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) to his place, and of course I welcome the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) to hers—a great promotion for her. The work of her predecessor, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), has been invaluable in what we can do together, especially with covid.
I commend the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Nick Gibb) throughout his tenure as Minister for School Standards, during which time the proportion of disadvantaged pupils entered for the EBacc increased from 9% in 2011 to 27% in 2021.

Nick Gibb: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for those words. As he will know, the EBacc combines core academic GCSEs in subjects that advantaged families take it for granted that their children will study—maths, English, at least two sciences, a humanity and a foreign language. Given the importance of those subjects, what measures is he taking to ensure that schools meet the target of 75% of year 11 pupils taking those GCSE exams by 2024, and 90% by 2027?

Nadhim Zahawi: I think my right hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that we have already achieved GCSE entry levels of over 95% in English, maths and science, and over 80% in humanities. On language GCSEs, however, the situation is slightly more challenging. That remains the biggest barrier to achieving the ambition, which is why we remain committed to reforming the subject content of French, German and Spanish GCSEs.

Andrew Gwynne: I support a relentless focus on standards in the core academic subjects, but resources also count. Given that Institute for Fiscal Studies analysis shows that the most deprived secondary schools saw a 14% real-terms fall in spending per pupil between 2009-10 and 2019-20, can the Secretary of State say whether that disparity in investment has improved or harmed social mobility and social justice?

Nadhim Zahawi: I am grateful for the hon. Member’s question. I hope that he backs the record investment in education—£86 billion—that the Chancellor provided in the Budget. The Sutton Trust—I hope the hon. Member appreciates its research—suggests that, in 2016, the 300 schools that had increased EBacc take-up were  more likely to achieve good GCSEs in mathematics and English, with pupil premium pupils benefiting the most. That is real levelling up from this Government.

Student Loan Repayment Threshold

Andrew Bowie: What plans the Government have to change the threshold for student loan repayments.

Michelle Donelan: We are considering reforms to continue to drive up the quality of higher education, promote genuine social mobility and ensure better value for money for both the taxpayer and the student. I will not comment on speculation, but we remain committed to a fairer funding model for students in higher education and will conclude the post-18 review in due course.

Andrew Bowie: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I know that she is as aware as I am of the effect of lockdown on the education of the current generation of students, so may I urge her, whatever decision she and the Department come to regarding the threshold for student loan repayments, to ensure that we do not do anything that would be perceived as punishing this generation—a generation that feels so hard done by as a result of the necessary decisions taken over the past two years?

Michelle Donelan: My hon. Friend is an assiduous campaigner on behalf of students. I reassure him and the House that we are committed to a funding model for higher education that is fair for students and the taxpayer—a system that enables those with the ability and the ambition to go to university, complete their course and get a graduate job.

Matt Western: The Prime Minister is notorious for sitting on reports—he must have piles—but Augur predates even him. With regard to higher education funding, there are reports that the repayment threshold on student loans may drop to £22,000 before graduates start paying back their student loans, which would be both regressive and burdensome. It would be regressive because, according to the IFS, a cut in the repayment threshold would impact worst female graduates and those from more deprived backgrounds, and burdensome because a graduate earning £30,000 a year would have to pay about £400 more on top of £500 more in national insurance contributions, which would represent a real-terms tax rate of 50%. Will the Minister confirm that changes to the threshold will be guided by the principles of fair and progressive taxation? When can we expect the Government’s response to Augar?

Michelle Donelan: As I have already outlined, we will report back on Augar shortly. The principles underlying our policies are: a more sustainable student finance system, driving up quality, seeing real social mobility and maintaining our world-class reputation in higher education. That is what we stand for and will continue to work towards.

Carol Monaghan: I welcome the new shadow Education team to their positions. Young people in England already graduate with an average of £50,000 of debt as a result of the huge tuition fees,  so for the Government even to contemplate lowering the threshold for student loan repayments will only compound the financial struggles of those young people. It is not good enough to say that we will hear about Augur shortly. Augur recommended that tuition fees be lowered by this academic year. So can the Minister explain why, contrary to recommendations by experts commissioned by her own Government, tuition fees have still not been lowered?

Michelle Donelan: As the hon. Member will know, the Augur report was comprehensive, so it is right that we look at everything outlined in it and take our time to get this right. As I have said, at the heart of our decision making will be: students; ensuring that our higher education institutions retain their international reputation; and ensuring genuine social mobility. I wish that Opposition parties would focus on that, too.

Young People: High-quality Jobs

James Daly: What steps his Department is taking to support young peopleinto high-quality jobs.

Suzanne Webb: What steps his Department is taking to support young peopleinto high quality jobs.

Jane Hunt: What steps his Department is taking to support young peopleinto high quality jobs.

Nadhim Zahawi: We are supporting young people to ensure that they have the skills for high-quality, secure and fulfilling employment through the plan for jobs package, which is £500 million of Department for Education funding. That includes, of course, a £3,000 cash boost for employers hiring new apprentices, which we are extending to the end of January.

James Daly: Holy Cross College in my constituency provides a broad range of BTEC qualifications to its students, which has played a crucial part in widening access to higher education. While I welcome the introduction of T-levels, will my right hon. Friend confirm, following the recent announcement delaying proposed changes by a year, that BTECs will remain an option for young people seeking the necessary qualifications to secure a high-quality job and a bright future?

Nadhim Zahawi: Mr Speaker, I hope to make T-levels as famous as A-levels and to give you a T-level pin like mine to wear on your lapel as well. I am happy to confirm that we will continue to fund some BTECs and other applied general qualifications in future where there is a clear need for skills and knowledge that A-levels and T-levels cannot provide and where they meet new quality standards.

Suzanne Webb: The electric vehicle revolution will dominate the urban west midlands—or, some may say, the west midlands will dominate the electric vehicle revolution. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must continue to align the post-16 education system with employer demand to ensure that we have the skills for that revolution and to develop our own home-grown talent?

Nadhim Zahawi: I totally agree. That is why our reforms are focused on giving people the skills they need to get great jobs in sectors of the economy that need them and on putting employers at the heart of our skills system, and I hope of course that one day I will visit a gigafactory in my hon. Friend’s constituency.

Jane Hunt: Loughborough College already does an amazing job in providing high-quality skills to people of all ages in Loughborough. However, it is going one better by using Government funding to build a new T-levels centre. Will my right hon. Friend agree to visit the site to promote the great work being done to make ready for this new chapter for education in Loughborough?

Nadhim Zahawi: I am delighted that Loughborough College has benefited from our T-levels capital fund to create fantastic new facilities. I would be happy to visit its new T-levels building and to see where it is now offering these world-class qualifications in digital, construction, health, education and childcare.

Margaret Ferrier: Lots of factors contribute to making a job high-quality and students should be given the tools to identify them for the future. On that basis, what steps are the Government taking to improve knowledge of the gender and ethnicity pay gaps in schools?

Nadhim Zahawi: I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s question. We always strive to make sure that children have the highest level of information when they make these decisions, including careers advice, contact with businesses, and, soon, through the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill, the ability to go much further in terms of experiencing what providers can offer.

Toby Perkins: The Secretary of State referred to apprenticeships in his original answer. We believe that they are a key way to help young people into high-quality jobs, but the introduction of the apprenticeship levy saw a 36% fall in the number of people doing apprenticeships, even before covid. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has described the apprenticeship levy as having “failed on every measure”, stating that it will continue to
“undermine investment in skills…without significant reform”.
Why does not the Government’s current skills Bill contain any measures to reform the levy or to boost apprenticeships?

Nadhim Zahawi: I am grateful to the shadow Minister. Obviously, he was not listening to the Budget, because apprenticeship investment is going up to £2.7 billion a year by 2024. I remind him that, since we came into office, there have been 4.9 million apprenticeship starts. The focus is very much on quality, and I hope he would applaud the fact that 50% of all apprenticeships are among the under-25s and that level 2 and 3 apprenticeships are 50% of that, too.

Robert Halfon: Key subjects such as design and technology and information and communication technology have seen the proportion of students taking them up decline by 70% and 40% respectively, so surely the EBacc should be improved to ensure that education better prepares pupils for the world of work. Will my  right hon. Friend emulate the work of the former Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, who made design and technology compulsory, and be aware of the 84,000 young people who have been unemployed for more than 12 months? We are behind many other OECD countries.

Nadhim Zahawi: I am grateful to the Chairman of the Education Committee, who has been a champion for skills for most of his career. Computer science is very much part of the EBacc. Our overhaul of ICT, in which we have invested more than £80 million, has made a real difference. We continue to make sure that schools deliver not just the EBacc, but a much broader set of GCSEs. Design and technology is incredibly important to that, as I know this is to people such as Sir James Dyson.

International Students and Researchers:  Immigration Rules

Martyn Day: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on immigration rules for (a) international students and (b) researchers participating in education in the UK.

Michelle Donelan: The student and graduate routes offer a streamlined process and are a competitive post-study work offer for international students. We are working with the Home Office to drive reforms forward to improve high-skilled migration routes for innovators and top talent, as well as making the UK the most exciting place to locate as a researcher.

Martyn Day: Since Brexit, the number of EU students studying in UK universities has fallen by 56% in Scotland, 54% in Wales, 42% in Northern Ireland and 36% in England. There has also been a massive drop in EU school trips to the UK due to the scrapping of group passports and increased paperwork for visas. How does the Minister plan to repair the damage that Brexit has caused UK educational and cultural institutions?

Michelle Donelan: We value all international students, including EU students, not just for the financial benefit, but for the cultural benefit and the benefit to our society. That is exactly why we updated our international education strategy. We are on track to see 600,000 international students a year and to increase our education exports to £35 billion, and we have appointed an international education adviser.

Julian Lewis: Of the 16 Afghan scholars sponsored by the Council for At-Risk Academics, 10 remain trapped in Afghanistan; four, with the welcome help of the Home Office, have managed to come to the UK; and two remain waiting for visas—one of them in hiding. Will it be possible for the Ministers to co-ordinate efforts with the Home Office to ensure that those who have paid-for studentships in the UK get their visas as soon as possible?

Michelle Donelan: We already work very closely with the Home Office. I am more than happy to meet my right hon. Friend to discuss the case in more detail.

Disabled School Leavers: Professional Development

Wera Hobhouse: What steps he is taking to support the professional development of disabled school leavers.

Will Quince: All children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities should be prepared for adulthood at every age and stage of their education. We committed in the national disability strategy to supporting pathways to employment for disabled learners, including strengthening the supported internship programme and ensuring that traineeships and apprenticeships are accessible.

Wera Hobhouse: Bath and North East Somerset Council, together with Bath College and Virgin Care, run a partnership called Project SEARCH to help young people with physical and learning disabilities to develop the skills that they need when they want to access the employment market. I pay tribute to that project, but far too many disabled people nationally face huge difficulties in accessing employment after leaving school and the support that they get at school. Will the Minister support a successor programme to Kickstart that is particularly tailored to disabled young people? Will he make recommendations and work together with colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions?

Will Quince: Our ambition is for every child and young person, no matter what challenges they face, to have access to a world-class education that sets them up for life. We know that with the right preparation and support, the overwhelming majority of young people with SEND are capable of sustained paid employment. So what are we doing? We have a £1.2 million grant to the Education and Training Foundation, a supported internship programme, our work with our DWP counterparts and the adjustments passport pilots. It is all about preparation for adulthood and work.

SEND Children

Elliot Colburn: What steps his Department is taking to help ensure children with special educational needs and disabilities receive a quality education.

Will Quince: We established the SEND review because we are determined to help children with SEND to realise their potential and to prepare them for later life. We are increasing funding for SEND, including £2.6 billion over the next three years to deliver new places and improve existing provision for pupils with SEND.

Elliot Colburn: I was pleased to celebrate with Carshalton and Wallington families the Second Reading of the Down Syndrome Bill—a legislative milestone that will require schools and councils, among others, to take account of new guidance. Unfortunately, in councils such as Lib Dem-run Sutton Council, which has been slammed by Ofsted for its diabolical management of SEND services, there is concern about the implementation of the new guidance. What steps is the Minister taking   to ensure that failing local authorities do not scupper the potential for this important Bill to unlock new opportunities for children with Down’s syndrome?

Will Quince: Sutton was revisited by Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission in 2020 and was found to have made progress in all previously identified areas of weakness. The Bill aims to improve services and life outcomes for people with Down’s syndrome, and we will support local authorities in the implementation of any future reforms. I know that my hon. Friend has concerns; I think that I am meeting him tomorrow to discuss the issue further. I look forward to it.

Marsha de Cordova: Prior to the pandemic, there was a crisis in SEND provision, and it has only got worse—from bureaucratic hurdles to children having to face long delays before being assessed. It is having a devastating impact: 27% of families waiting for an education, health and care plan assessment are waiting for more than six months, despite the legal deadline of 20 weeks. I am sure that the Minister agrees that this is wholly unacceptable, so what action is he taking to ensure that children are assessed within the legal deadline and provided with the appropriate support that they need in school?

Will Quince: I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I will tell her exactly what we are doing. We have increased the high needs funding budget by £750 million a year for each of the previous three years. The spending review of 2021 provides a further £1.6 billion to that budget, an extra £2.6 billion in capital funding, an extra £42 million—but the hon. Lady is right: it is not just about money. That is why we have the comprehensive SEND review, which will report in the first quarter of next year.

Helen Hayes: The past two years have been incredibly difficult for children with special educational needs and disability. While the Government continue to delay the publication of the long-awaited SEND review, families are suffering now. Some 15,000 children with an education, health and care plan are still waiting to receive the provision specified in their plan, and more than 40% of plans are not issued within the statutory 20-week period.
Can I press the Minister again? Families up and down the country with children with SEND are losing confidence in the Government’s ability to deliver. What is the Minister doing now to support children with SEND and their families who are suffering while this Government continue to let them down?

Will Quince: I welcome the hon. Lady to her new position. I agree with her that the pandemic has had a disproportionate impact on young people with SEND and their families, and we are committed to helping pupils, including those with SEND, to make up for lost learning. We have provided additional uplifts for those who attend specialist settings; we have invested that extra £42 million. I accept that the SEND review is taking longer than we wanted it to, but it is a priority for me and for the Government, and there will be a report in the first quarter of next year.

Disadvantaged Pupils: Support in 2022-23

David Simmonds: What steps his Department is taking to support disadvantaged pupils during the 2022-23 academic year.

Jane Stevenson: What steps his Department is taking to support disadvantaged pupils during the 2022-23 academic year.

Ben Bradley: What steps his Department is taking to support disadvantaged pupils during the 2022-23 academic year.

Robin Walker: The Government have announced an additional £1 billion recovery premium over the academic years 2022-23 and 2023-24, building on this year’s recovery premium. It will help schools to deliver evidence-based approaches to support the most disadvantaged pupils. This funding is in addition to the dedicated schools grant pupil premium, which was £2.5 billion this year, and the national tutoring programme.

David Simmonds: There are significant budgetary pressures within the dedicated schools grant, which affect a number of Government Departments. What discussions is my hon. Friend having to ensure that those challenges are properly addressed?

Robin Walker: I often discuss with colleagues across Government areas of mutual interest, including how best we can support young people with special educational needs and disabilities. The autumn spending review committed an additional £4.7 billion to the core schools budget, including funding for SEND to help the sector respond to the pressures that it is facing. I am sure my hon. Friend will join me in welcoming the trebling of the budget for high needs capital, and the continuation of our safety valve programme.

Jane Stevenson: For many years Wolverhampton’s education outcomes have been below those of our neighbours in the Black Country, and we are currently experiencing a youth unemployment crisis in our city. How will these measures help to reverse that trend in places such as Wolverhampton, where there are a significant number of disadvantaged pupils?

Robin Walker: Employers tell us that good numeracy and literacy are key to securing employment, and our three-year £1.5 billion investment in the national tutoring programme—complemented by £2.5 billion for the pupil premium and the new two-year recovery premium, worth £1 billion—focuses on raising disadvantaged pupils’ achievements in those key areas for employment.

Ben Bradley: We know that additional face-to-face learning will be an important factor in helping students to catch up after lost time at school during the pandemic, especially, perhaps, disadvantaged young people. Can my hon. Friend update the House on the progress of the national tutoring programme, and what efforts is he making to ensure that young people in Mansfield who really need it are able to access it?

Robin Walker: As I have said, the programme is on track in terms of recruitment, and like schools throughout the country, those in Mansfield can benefit from Government-funded tutoring to help children to catch up after months of lost learning during the pandemic. Mansfield’s schools can also take advantage of the chance to appoint an academic mentor, or to provide tutoring support in-house.

Lydiate Primary School

Bill Esterson: What recent representations he has received on the need for a new building at Lydiate Primary School in Sefton.

Robin Walker: I understand that Lydiate Primary has been facing challenges with buildings in poor condition, and the former Minister for the School System met the hon. Member to discuss that school in particular. The Department spoke to Sefton Council last year, and I would encourage the school to continue to work with the council on its plans for investment. We will also set out details for future rounds of the school rebuilding programme next year.

Bill Esterson: Staff at Lydiate Primary School do an excellent job, but the building is damp, the heating system needs constant repairs, the roof leaks, the basement floods, and parts of the building are unsafe. The Department has just carried out a survey, and the surveyor has told the school that he is extremely concerned about the state of the building. Does the Minister agree that no child should have to go to school in such a poor environment? Can he tell me when the survey will be published, and will the Government commit themselves to giving the children and staff at Lydiate Primary School what they need if, as seems likely, that is what their own survey recommends?

Robin Walker: As the hon. Member will recognise, the Government allocate billions of pounds every year in capital funding through local authorities, and work alongside them in this respect. We will continue to work with Sefton Council to ensure that the right funding and the right response to the report are produced. However, I am sure the hon. Member will welcome the fact that schools in his constituency are being supported by both the outgoing priority school building programme and the new rebuilding programme, and that is something that we want to continue.

Technical Qualifications

Henry Smith: What measures his Department is taking to strengthen the value of technical qualifications.

Flick Drummond: What steps his Department is taking to strengthen the value of technical qualifications.

Alex Burghart: Our review of technical education at levels 2 and 3 is providing new routes to work, ensuring that all students have qualifications, designed with employers, that meet the needs of the economy.

Henry Smith: From next September, Crawley College in my constituency will be offering an expanded number of T-levels, including in healthcare, science, education and construction. Would my hon. Friend like to pay a visit to that institution to see those opportunities for local 16 to 19-year-olds?

Alex Burghart: Any invitation to Crawley is too good to miss, and I would be absolutely delighted to come and see the roll-out of T-levels in my hon. Friend’s constituency. In my time as a Minister, I have had the pleasure of seeing many such colleges, and students and tutors are united in their enthusiasm for the project on which they have embarked.

Flick Drummond: If the Government are keen on improving skills, levelling up and improving technical qualifications, including for green jobs, is this not the time to seriously consider having a 14 to 18 curriculum so that students can study these subjects in depth?

Alex Burghart: My hon. Friend is a powerful advocate for the position that she has just outlined. The Government are committed to providing young people with technical skills and the knowledge to progress. Indeed, strong university technical colleges such as the outstanding UTC in Portsmouth are succeeding in equipping their students with these vital skills. I understand that she met my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to discuss this the other day.

Studying Abroad

James Davies: What steps his Department is taking to widen access to opportunities to study abroad.

Alex Burghart: The Turing scheme is the UK’s global programme for studying and working abroad. Widening access is central to it, and students from disadvantaged backgrounds are offered additional financial support including an increased grant towards living costs and funding for travel-related costs. I understand that almost half of those who go on the Turing scheme will be from disadvantaged backgrounds.

James Davies: The arrival of the Turing scheme is good news for young people in my constituency, including those at Coleg Llandrillo Rhyl who are planning a trip to France in the new year. Can the Minister give me an update on how the scheme is benefiting those in Wales more widely?

Alex Burghart: Absolutely. One of the things we wanted to do when we designed Turing was to ensure that it was a UK-wide programme and that young people from all parts of the United Kingdom could take advantage of it. That has included Wales, and indeed north Wales. Recently, I was lucky enough to speak to participants from across the UK, and we are seeing young people doing remarkable new things and having opportunities that they would otherwise not have been able to take advantage of.

Dave Doogan: Scotland received £8.3 million under the UK Government’s Turing scheme, compared with £22.6 million under the Erasmus+ scheme.  Given that this £14 million reduction will clearly impact opportunities for young learners to study abroad, when will the UK Government seeks to close this gap and properly fund study abroad?

Alex Burghart: The UK Government are putting £110 million into Turing, and I am delighted to say that in the first round 29 Scottish providers have been able to take advantage of this Treasury-funded scheme. More than £8 million in funding has already gone to Scotland. The other day, I was lucky enough to be at Glasgow University, where I met the chancellor and students, who were absolutely delighted with the opportunities that it was providing.

Covid-19 Education Recovery: Access to Tablets and Laptops

Desmond Swayne: What steps his Department is taking to provide students with access to tablets and laptops to support covid-19 education recovery.

Robin Walker: We have announced that we will provide an additional 500,000 devices for disadvantaged children and young people this year, on top of the 1.35 million delivered already. This brings our total investment to support remote education and online social care to more than £520 million.

Desmond Swayne: But that is no substitute for face-to-face learning. What can the Ministers say to those parents who are exasperated by their children even now being sent home to begin remote learning?

Robin Walker: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to suggest that the evidence is that children benefit from face-to-face learning, and that is why our priority is for schools to deliver face-to-face education to all pupils. Regular attendance at school is vital for children’s education, wellbeing and longer-term development. Where a pupil cannot attend school because they are following public health advice relating to covid, schools must provide immediate access to remote education. I am pleased to confirm that the figures as of 25 November showed that 99% of schools were open to provide face-to-face education.

Stephen Morgan: In a recent survey of providers, 90% said that the Government’s contractor for their flagship national tutoring programme was not prepared for its launch. With children into their third year of disruption, what action will the Minister take to ensure additional tutoring support reaches every child who needs it?

Robin Walker: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place, and I look forward to working opposite him. The national tutoring programme is on track overall, and we are seeing strong take-up of the school-based element, with increasing take-up of the academic mentor element. We want to see more take-up of direct tutoring, and we are working closely with Randstad and its sub-providers to ensure it steps up and increases as we hit a higher trajectory later in the year.

Covid-19: Safely Opening Schools After Christmas Holidays

Kate Griffiths: What steps his Department plans to take to support schools to open safely after the Christmas 2021 holidays during the covid-19 outbreak.

Nadhim Zahawi: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. Reducing transmission in schools is of the utmost importance to me, and I will do everything in my power to keep schools open. We have provided guidance to settings regarding testing arrangements on their return in January.

Kate Griffiths: As the Secretary of State knows, carbon dioxide monitors can help to identify quickly where ventilation needs to be increased in classrooms. Will he give an update on the roll-out of these monitors in schools?

Nadhim Zahawi: Over 99% of eligible settings have now received a CO2 monitor, with more than 320,000 now delivered. Final deliveries will be made before the end of term. Feedback from schools suggests the monitors are a helpful tool in managing ventilation, sitting alongside the other protective measures in place to manage transmission.

School Building Condition: Effect on Learning

Richard Holden: What steps he is taking to help ensure the school building programme takes account of the effect of building condition on learning.

Robin Walker: I recognise the impact on education of buildings in poor condition, which is why we have allocated £11.3 billion since 2015 to improve the condition of schools. In addition, the school rebuilding programme will transform the learning environment of 500 schools over the next decade. We are considering responses to our consultation on prioritising the remaining places in the programme, and we plan to set out our response early next year.

Richard Holden: I have unusual schools in my constituency, given the size of the rural population. I would like the Minister to meet me to discuss Witton-le-Wear Primary School, a small primary school in which the building is in quite good condition but the conditions for learning are not great, and Delta North School, an alternative provision provider that is looking to increase its provision for local people. I would look forward to it if he could meet me to discuss these two important constituency schools.

Robin Walker: It was a pleasure to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency not so long ago. I understand that the layout at Witton-le-Wear poses challenges, although it has sufficient capacity. The previous Minister for School Standards, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Nick Gibb), met him in July to discuss the school, since when officials have visited the school and set out the funding available to the Durham local authority to prioritise local need. Of course I would be happy to meet him.
I understand that Delta North is an independent school and, as a private business, we expect it to secure its own investment for development. We know that independent AP can play a useful role in the system, but we rightly prioritise the needs of state-funded schools when allocating public funds.

Further Education Colleges: Upgrade

Damien Moore: What steps he is taking to upgrade further education colleges.

Alex Burghart: We are working to upgrade further education colleges through the FE capital transformation programme. We are investing £1.5 billion between 2020 and 2026 to tackle poor conditions in the FE estate and to ensure our colleges are excellent places for people to learn.

Damien Moore: King George V College in my constituency has a reputation for producing outstanding A-level results, with students going on to do great things. It is a model for how things can evolve in the education sector. Will the Minister commit to joining me on a visit to the college to see how it could be a blueprint for development in other areas across the country?

Alex Burghart: Going to Southport would be as great an honour as going to Crawley. I would be delighted to see how Southport is taking advantage of the £480,000 it recently received from the FE capital transformation fund.

Lifelong Learning and Skills

Stephen Crabb: What steps his Department is taking to promote lifelong learning and skills development.

Michelle Donelan: We are supporting adults to get the skills they need through the adult education budget, and we are delivering on the Prime Minister’s lifetime skills guarantee, which includes the offer of free level 3 courses for jobs, skills bootcamps and, from 2025, the introduction of a lifelong loan entitlement, enabling more flexible and modular study across higher and further education.

Stephen Crabb: Giving people greater choice over how and where they study is one of the keys to improving the skills of our workforce and opening up new opportunities, especially for those from disadvantaged backgrounds. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government’s new lifelong learning entitlement has the potential to transform options for learners across the whole of their lives?

Michelle Donelan: I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend. The LLE is at the heart of our skills revolution and will open up higher and further education by allowing people to study in a more modularised fashion. With that extra flexibility, it will be much easier for people to reskill and upskill, which will in turn support our businesses, our productivity and job creation.

New School Locations: Consultation of Communities

Chris Green: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on helping to ensure that communities are consulted on the location of new schools.

Robin Walker: The free schools programme has created hundreds of new schools, including Eden Boys School and The Olive School in Bolton, both judged as outstanding by Ofsted. Before signing a funding agreement to open any new school, the Secretary of State will always have regard to local consultation on the proposals.

Chris Green: Getting planning right is one of the biggest concerns my constituents have. The proposals to build a new school on the Captains Clough playing field drew a huge number of people to a public meeting I recently held. Will my hon. Friend the Minister commit to meeting me and working with my constituents to ensure we get the right school in the right place?

Robin Walker: I understand that an initial site search put forward Captains Clough as a preferred option, but we are aware of the concerns raised by my hon. Friend and others, and that a local group has submitted a village green planning application. We are exploring options with the local authority to resolve those concerns, but of course I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the matter further.

School Outcomes: Regional Inequality

Karl Turner: What steps he is taking to tackle regional inequality in school outcomes.

Robin Walker: We are committed to improving school outcomes everywhere and are investing a further £4.7 billion by 2024-25 in the core schools budget in England, over and above the 2019 spending review settlement for schools in 2022-23. In 2022-23 the national funding formula is providing a total of £6.7 billion, targeted at schools with higher numbers of pupils with additional needs, which comes on top of the pupil premium funding.

Karl Turner: I pay tribute to the school leaders, teachers and support staff teaching the kids in east Hull. The truth is that kids in Yorkshire and the Humber are 12 times more likely to be attending an underperforming school than their counterparts in the south of England. If the Government are serious about levelling up, is it not time they started looking at primary schools in the north of England?

Robin Walker: I share the hon. Gentleman’s passion for ensuring that the progress we have seen over past decades in London and the south-east is replicated across the country. That is a consistent drive of this Government; I am glad that some of the changes we have already made, such as the national funding formula and the introduction of the pupil premium, are pointing in that direction, but I will be happy to visit more schools in  the north of England, including primary schools, with him and others to ensure that we can continue to drive progress in this area.

Topical Questions

James Daly: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Nadhim Zahawi: The whole nation is appalled by the story of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes. No child should ever be subject to a campaign of such appalling cruelty, and I will make a statement to the House later today on the steps we are taking to learn the lessons of this tragedy and ensure that we can prevent other children from experiencing such horrific abuse.

James Daly: The Derby High School in my constituency offers an outstanding educational provision, but has ambitions to ensure that all its pupils have the skills, training and knowledge needed to access high-quality jobs at the earliest opportunity. In line with that ambition, the school is seeking funding to develop a technology centre. Will my right hon. Friend meet me and the school’s inspirational head, Ms Hubert, to discuss how that transformative vision can be achieved?

Nadhim Zahawi: I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the great work of our schools. I would be happy to meet him and the headteacher of the high school, Ms Hubert, to discuss plans for how we can build on the success of pupils in Bury.

Lindsay Hoyle: We now come to Bridget Phillipson and welcome her as the new shadow Secretary of State.

Bridget Phillipson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Secretary of State for his warm welcome, and welcome his intention to make a statement later today on the tragic death of Arthur.
The Secretary of State will be aware that in the north-west and the west midlands, just 40% of children aged 12 to 15 have been vaccinated. Will he use the Christmas holidays to vaccinate our children, support schools in planning for next term and get ahead of the virus?

Nadhim Zahawi: I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s kind words. We will do everything to make sure that we continue to vaccinate 12 to 15-year-olds. Of course, those who had their vaccine early on will be due to have their second jab by mid-December—the middle of this month—now that the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation has recommended that they have second jabs. We will continue to deliver those jabs using not only school settings but vaccination centres to make sure that we really drive the uptake of vaccines for 12 to 15-year-olds.

Bridget Phillipson: It is now more than six months since the education recovery chief Sir Kevan Collins resigned in protest at the Government’s abject failure. Their total failure to support our children risks letting down a generation. Why will the Secretary of State not bring forward proper proposals, like Labour’s clear, costed and achievable plans, which match the scale of the challenge that our children face?

Nadhim Zahawi: Instead of focusing on an arms race of increasing inputs of billions of pounds, we are focusing on outcomes. Those students with least time left in education—the 16 to 19-year-olds—are getting an extra hour of education a week. There was £800 million for that in the Budget and an additional £1 billion for secondary and primary school pupils, especially those who are most disadvantaged. Of course, we have heard today about the national tutoring programme, which is going at pace and will deliver real differences in levelling up to those who most need it. I hope that in future the hon. Lady will continue to look at evidence rather than worry about inputs.

Mark Fletcher: I was grateful to the Minister for Further and Higher Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan) for meeting me last week to discuss the lack of post-16 educational opportunities in the Bolsover constituency. Does she agree that in order for the next generation of young people in Bolsover truly to reach their potential, it is vital that they can access the full suite of educational choices locally?

Michelle Donelan: I absolutely agree that it is important for people of all ages to have access to higher education and training wherever they live. Learners in Bolsover are served by three general further education providers in the surrounding area, but I shall work with my hon. Friend on this issue and urge him and the Derbyshire local authority to use the published process to bring it to the attention of the Education and Skills Funding Agency for consideration. In addition, secondary schools rated good or outstanding by Ofsted can put forward proposals for the addition of sixth-form provision.

Carol Monaghan: I associate myself and the rest of us on the SNP Benches with the Secretary of State’s remarks about little Arthur.
Reports that the student loan repayment threshold will be lowered are most concerning for those who are already experiencing graduate debt. Will the Minister detail the discussions she has had with Treasury colleagues? Will she confirm whether any proposed threshold change would be applied retrospectively?

Michelle Donelan: As the hon. Member knows well, we will not comment on speculation. We will shortly respond in full to the Augar review, and the best interests of students, taxpayers and universities will be at the heart of that report.

Andrew Bowie: Even before the pandemic hit we knew that getting more young people into science, technology, engineering and maths subjects was vital. Now that we seek to build back better, what are my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench doing to get more young people, and especially more young women, throughout the United Kingdom into STEM subjects?

Michelle Donelan: Ensuring that everyone, regardless of their background, has the opportunity to pursue STEM subjects is a key priority of this Government. We fund multiple programmes to boost STEM uptake,  particularly among girls—that includes providing £84 million to improve computing teaching and participation at GCSE and A-level and £76 million for maths teaching for mastery—and we have more than 20,000 STEM ambassadors, of whom 40% are women.

Alison Thewliss: The post-Brexit Nobel laureate scheme was touted as a way to get the best and brightest scientists into the UK but has failed to attract a single application. Will the Secretary of State explain the reason for this complete failure? Could it be the Home Secretary’s hostile environment?

Michelle Donelan: The prize route is just one option under our global-talent route, through which we have received thousands of applications since it was launched in 2020. As the hon. Member knows, the prize route has a high bar: only those who are at the pinnacle of their career and who have already received and accepted prestigious prizes in their field qualify. The list of awards was drawn up in consultation with the relevant global talent-endorsing bodies and we continue to keep it under review.

Laura Trott: The Government are taking necessary and precautionary steps to deal with the omicron variant, but can my hon. Friend reassure the House that, whatever happens with this virus, he will not shut primary schools and nurseries? It is impossible for children this young to learn properly online and the damage that it does to their education and wellbeing is immense.

Robin Walker: In-person education remains our absolute priority. Our guidance is clear that settings should do everything possible to keep children in face-to-face education safely. We are working across the sector to ensure that face-to-face education and childcare are prioritised and I will do everything in my power to keep schools and nurseries open. I was particularly pleased to see some of the excellent work that is going on with academic mentors at Dunton Green Primary School in my hon. Friend’s constituency recently.

Catherine McKinnell: On Friday, I met with a fantastic group of students from Gosforth East Middle School who have been inspired by COP26 to make changes in their own school. They want to cut emissions, so they surveyed their teachers to find out why more of them do not have electric cars. Hearing that the main barrier is cost and that there is no access to a salary sacrifice scheme, the students want to know what the Government are going to do, given that it would boost manufacturing, support them with the cost-of-living crisis and significantly cut emissions in all our towns and cities.

Nadhim Zahawi: As a former Minister at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, I can tell the hon. Lady that it is about ensuring that we deliver affordable transport that is green: not only cars but other forms of transport.

Chris Clarkson: Some schools have not received an inspection for more than a decade, and material changes during that time, such as a new senior leadership team, could  have had a significant impact on the quality of education being provided. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital that parents have access to the most up-to-date picture of their children’s education?

Robin Walker: My hon. Friend is right that parents should have up-to-date assessments of the quality of education at their child’s school, which is why, from the start of this term, Ofsted resumed routine inspections of the full range of schools, with the aim of each school having at least one inspection by summer 2025.

Munira Wilson: Covid-related pupil absences have risen by about 47% over the past fortnight and many schools are struggling with staff absences, too. Given that we know that good ventilation is key in schools, can the Minister give us an update on the Bradford pilot that was started earlier this year? What is going on with regard to air purifiers, when will that trial report and will he implement its findings?

Robin Walker: The hon. Lady is right about the importance of this issue. As we heard in the Secretary of State’s update, CO2 monitors are being rolled out successfully across the school estate. The Bradford pilot is owned by the NHS, so, of course, we will work closely with it on interpreting, and implementing action on, its findings.

Robbie Moore: Last month, I hosted a mental health forum in my constituency, which was attended by local headteachers, including Jon Skurr of Carlton Keighley and Carly Purnell of Ilkley Grammar School. They made it clear to me that, in addition to providing great education, they must also provide counselling and pastoral care. Can my hon. Friend outline the Government’s plans to further support mental health provision in schools?

Will Quince: I am pleased to join my hon. Friend in thanking those providing these important services in his constituency. The Government are providing additional support through establishing mental health support teams in 35% of schools and colleges in England by 2023 and enabling all schools and colleges to train senior mental health leads by 2025.

Rachael Maskell: The biggest issues that children with special educational needs face in York is not only the coming together of the multi-disciplinary team in a timely way, but inadequacy. When the Minister is looking at his SEN review, will he ensure that there is a multi-agency workforce plan in place to meet the needs of all children with additional needs?

Will Quince: The hon. Lady is right in this regard. The SEN review will, of course, be looking at that and it will report in the first quarter of next year. I would be very happy to meet her to discuss the issue further.

Simon Baynes: My recent visit to Ysgol y Grango and Ysgol Rhiwabon in Clwyd South brought home to me the huge interest there is among students in Parliament and its workings. Given covid restrictions, will my right hon. Friend and the Ministers work with the House authorities to look at new, virtual and interactive ways to bring Parliament to schools and colleges across Wales and the UK?

Nadhim Zahawi: Mr Speaker, I am sure that you will agree that democracy and the role of Parliament are central to citizenship education, which prepares pupils to take an active role in society. Parliament’s excellent free education service offers a range of resources, including the resumption of school visits to Parliament, outreach visits to schools and online workshops.

Andrew Gwynne: Three months ago, I raised the appalling conditions at Russell Scott Primary School in Denton, which the Daily Mirror dubbed
“Britain’s worst built school where pupils paddle in sewage and get sick from toxic fumes”,
after a botched £5 million refurbishment by Carillion. What progress have Department for Education officials made with Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council to get the school urgently rebuilt?

Robin Walker: I remember well the hon. Gentleman’s Westminster Hall debate on this issue. We continue to work with Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council. In that debate, he put in a bid for the next round of the priority school building programme, and, as I mentioned earlier, we are consulting on our approach to that.

Miriam Cates: Across the country, many local directors of public health are going far beyond the Department’s covid guidance in their recommendations to schools, and the recent reintroduction of masks in communal spaces has turbo-charged this trend. Headteachers, who are not public health professionals, are being put in an impossible position. We are now seeing the cancellation of important events, the isolation of—and denial of education to— healthy children, forced mask wearing in lessons, punitive measures for forgetting to follow arbitrary rules, and children subjected to dangerously cold classrooms. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is an unethical and frankly inhumane way to treat our children? What can he do to ensure that schools do not go beyond the Government’s guidance?

Nadhim Zahawi: My hon. Friend is a passionate advocate for ensuring that any mitigation is proportionate. The most important thing is that we prioritise face-to-face education. Keeping children in school is my absolute priority, and I have said from the Dispatch Box today that I will do everything in my power to maintain that situation. Of course, directors of public health can advise temporary additional measures, but they should always be proportionate. As long as schools continue to be open, they should be holding nativities, and delivering every other one of their important functions.

Bill Esterson: Earlier I made the case to the Minister for School Standards, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), for a new school at Lydiate Primary School. His answer was to talk about maintenance, but that is just a make-do-and-mend approach that really is not going to cut it for the children of Lydiate Primary School; it is very short-sighted and would be poor value for money. Since 2010, the school capital programme has been cut from £9.1 billion to £4.3 billion. If the Government are serious about levelling up, will they put the money back in and rebuild schools such as Lydiate Primary School?

Robin Walker: The Prime Minister announced the new school rebuilding programme in June 2020. We have confirmed the first 100 schools as part of a commitment to 500 projects over the next decade, including Deyes High School in Sefton. We are investing a total of £5.6 billion of capital funding to support the education sector in 2021-22.

Matthew Hancock: Will the Secretary of State welcome tomorrow’s ten-minute rule Bill, which proposes universal screening for dyslexia in primary schools, and stronger support for teaching and assessment? I know that the Secretary of State, with his extraordinary life story, shares my passion for this agenda, so will he put his full weight behind it?

Nadhim Zahawi: My right hon. Friend is a passionate champion and advocate for the technology behind screening for dyslexia. I will certainly take a close look at his Bill tomorrow.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: After the sad news that he has announced— that he is stepping down at the next election—I call Barry Sheerman.

Barry Sheerman: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Is the Secretary of State aware that in the 10 years that I chaired the Select Committee on Education, one point came through really strongly—that every bit of money that we put into early years is the best investment that we can possibly make? When are we going to take that seriously and have good, accessible and cheap pre-school care, and the best Sure Start and children’s centres, like those we created under Tony Blair?

Nadhim Zahawi: I know that I can call the hon. Gentleman my friend because he is a passionate champion of education and of early years, and has been for a long time. In fact, he showed me around his think-tank, with which he did such tremendous work. He will be pleased to hear that we are delivering family hubs, which are not just about investing in bricks and mortar, but are evidence based when it comes to what can be done in the early years for families that need the most help.

Richard Holden: Storm Arwen has killed a load of the electricity supplies not only to homes across my constituency but to schools. Will the Minister ask the Department to feed into the Ofgem review to ensure that if there are power issues in future, schools such as the small schools in Weardale or schools like St Bede’s in Lanchester are not cut off and children are not cut off from education as they have been over the past two years because of covid?

Robin Walker: I would certainly be happy to meet my hon. Friend further to discuss this while we also discuss the situation at Witton-le-Wear.

Alan Brown: It is a fact that hungry children cannot learn. The Scottish Government have implemented the Scottish child payment of £10 a week, which has already been described by charities as a game changer in supporting families across Scotland. It is getting doubled to £20 per week in April. Is it not time the UK Government did more to support vulnerable families and looked at reinstating the £20 a week universal credit uplift?

Nadhim Zahawi: I am very proud of the work we do on breakfast clubs and on the holiday activities and food programme, which I helped to set up when I was a Minister in the Department, and where there is now £200 million-plus a year.

Storm Arwen: Power Outages

Kevan Jones: (Urgent Question):  To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to make a statement on the current situation regarding power outages cause by Storm Arwen.

Greg Hands: As the House will know, the Secretary of State updated Members last week on how we are continuing to work to ensure that power is restored to people’s homes following Storm Arwen. We have provided a named contact for MPs, on request, for each network operator, which I was delighted to do personally with the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) on Friday morning.
Storm Arwen was the worst storm in over 15 years in terms of the disruption and damage caused. Those most badly hit have been in northern England and Scotland, and some have now been without power for over a week. That has made life incredibly difficult and stressful for many residents, and I want to assure them that help is there.
On Wednesday, I visited County Durham and on Friday I visited Aberdeenshire to see first-hand some of the devastation caused by Storm Arwen, and yesterday the Secretary of State was also in the north-east of England. I thank the engineers, the emergency workers and our armed forces who are on the ground for their incredibly hard work and perseverance in challenging conditions. We have removed the compensation limit to allow customers affected to claim up to £140 per day if they are without power.
I am glad to say that 99.8% of those affected by the storm have had their power supply restored so far—but this is not good enough. It is completely unacceptable that about 1,600 of them were still in this position as of this morning, although the situation is improving each hour. The remaining areas affected are in the north-east of England, predominantly the Wear valley surrounding Eastgate, where I was on Wednesday. I have been assured by the network operators that all efforts are focused on having power restored to those households in the next days.

Kevan Jones: First, I am disappointed that the Secretary of State is not here today to address us on this very important issue.
There is something seriously wrong with Northern Powergrid—not with the engineers and individuals who are out restoring power but with the management and senior management of that company. The Secretary of State, during his visit, said that he met, as I know the Minister met, local managers, and I thank the Minister for his phone call on Friday morning. But in the past 10 days I have had constituents in Craghead, Stanley, High Handenhold, Edmondsley and parts of Chester-le-Street without power. Some have now had it restored, but Blackhouse, Edmondsley and parts of Craghead are still without.
I ask the Minister to go back to the power company, as it cannot give the assurance that he has just given to those communities: it says on its own website that there is no date yet for restoring power in parts of my constituency.  Constituents have had to experience sub-zero temperatures in terrible conditions. That has been made worse by Northern Powergrid.
On the night of Friday 26 November, I understand that internally the company issued an emergency for County Durham. That was not transmitted to the local resilience forum until Wednesday 1 December, which only became apparent to the county council and other resilience forums when an enterprising council officer started plotting on a map how many homes were affected. What has made the situation worse is Northern Powergrid’s communications, which raised people’s expectations that power was coming on, so people have stayed in homes when they should not have done. Likewise, information now is still not good. I was even told last week by an employee of Northern Powergrid, “Just ignore what is on the website—it’s complete nonsense.” If they are saying that, what confidence can my constituents have in that information? The communication has been appalling and made things worse.
The other thing that has made things worse—particularly in my constituency, parts of which are not rural, but are in towns—is the age of the components, so I will ask three quick questions. First, will the Minister do an urgent, independent assessment of the resilience of the grid, especially since we have the storm coming in tomorrow night? Secondly, what has been done since 2013? Thirdly, what can be done to force the company to pass information on to the bodies that need to know, including the resilience forums? What compensation or money will be put forward to Durham County Council and others for the money they have expended so far?

Greg Hands: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for those further questions, and for his concern. It was good to have a chance to give him an in-person update on Friday morning on the situation in County Durham and particularly in relation to North Durham, and to pass on contact details for Northern Powergrid.
The Secretary of State gave a statement last Wednesday from this very Dispatch Box. He was in the north-east yesterday and is currently on an urgent call with Phil Jones, who heads up Northern Powergrid.
On the responses, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the communications have not been effective. I said to Phil Jones in person last Wednesday that the communications were not good enough, particularly in the first few days. I was joined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan), who gave directly to him the frustrations she had had, including that there had been no social media response. I think those messages landed well with Northern Powergrid.
On Wednesday, I also visited the call centre at Penshaw, and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the incredible work being done in those call centres. I remember meeting Nicola Chipp, Dave Rose and many others who have been putting in long shifts in that call centre. For the first 48 hours, it was quite difficult to get into the call centre in the storm’s aftermath, but some incredible efforts are being put in there.
A lot of engineers have come from right across the country. When I was there on Wednesday, 200 engineers were there—there are even more today—ensuring that those last properties get reconnected. In terms of reconnection by tomorrow, that is the assurance given  by Northern Powergrid. Hundreds of generators have been deployed in the area. Finally, on the independent assessment, what the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Ofgem do after these events is conduct an independent assessment and a lessons learned process, which is exactly what we did following Storm Desmond seven years ago.

Richard Holden: I congratulate the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) on securing this urgent question, and I thank the Minister and the Secretary of State for visiting my constituency over the past week. There are some real issues here about the relationship between energy companies and the local resilience forums. The Civil Contingencies Act 2004 and its associated regulations in 2005 set out the guidance for how energy providers should engage with local resilience forums, but we need to know from Ministers what assessment they have made of the communications from Northern Powergrid. Does the law need strengthening if it is not passing information over quickly enough?
To make another quick point, we welcome the Ofgem review, which should be a helpful step in the right direction, the fact that the £700 cap has been removed and the doubling of the daily allowance for my constituents. However, many of them in the run-up to Christmas will have spent a huge amount of their own cash on going into hotels or other accommodation and on extra food. Will the Minister put the Government’s shoulder to the wheel to ensure that Northern Powergrid gets that compensation to my constituents as quickly as possible? The run-up to Christmas is an especially expensive time of year for people, and they need to have that money.

Greg Hands: I commend my hon. Friend, with whom I spoke on Tuesday and Wednesday. It was a pleasure to visit his constituency. At Ireshopeburn, I saw the generator being connected to the community centre by engineers from across the UK, including from UK Power Networks in south-east England. I saw the relief centre at St John’s Chapel and I was in Eastgate, so I saw things first hand in his constituency.
To answer my hon. Friend’s question about our assessment of the comms, I have already mentioned that the comms from Northern Powergrid were not good enough in those first days. I am sure that that will be part of the review process that the Government will do with Ofgem as part of the response to all these storm events. On Northern Powergrid, we put the experience of many Members of the House and their constituents in those first few days firmly to Mr Jones, and I think that that message landed.

Ed Miliband: I thank the engineers, the Army, the emergency services and, most of all, local people in affected areas for their heroic response to the crisis. It is totally contemptuous for the Business Secretary to be available for a photo opportunity yesterday but not to be available today to come to the House to account for the Government’s performance. That simply adds insult to injury for communities in the north of England that have been badly let down by the power networks and by central Government in their crisis response and oversight of the system.
I will ask the Minister some questions. Some 10 days into the crisis, why has the Government’s emergency committee Cobra still not met to co-ordinate the response? Over the weekend, a local Conservative councillor in Durham said:
“if this happened in London…or in the south-east, everything would have got thrown at it.”
Are people in the north not entitled to think that he is right and that they have been treated as second-class citizens? Why did it take a week for the Army to be called in when Members on both sides of the House were calling for that at the start of last week? Why are thousands still without power when the Secretary of State told us last Wednesday in the House that people would be reconnected by Friday? Will the Minister now apologise to communities in the north for the Government’s performance?
The Minister said today, as the Secretary of State said yesterday, that he wants to learn lessons, but we have been here before. After the 2013 storms, multiple reports were produced—I have them here for him—that identified problems of communication, the vulnerability of the network and the complacency of the companies. After that event, during which 16,000 people were cut off for 48 hours, customers were told that they could expect to see “significant improvement”. This time, however, the performance has been far worse. Is not the only conclusion that the Government have been asleep at the wheel not just in the last 10 days but for the best part of a decade?
The climate crisis means that we will face many more such events. The Government must get a grip. Instead of a cosy Government-led process, overseen by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Ofgem, will the Minister now establish what the situation demands—a proper independent inquiry into the performance and failures of power companies, regulators and the Government to ensure that our country and communities are never left that vulnerable again?

Greg Hands: Let me deal with each point in turn. It would not be fair to say that yesterday was a photo opportunity. The Secretary of State visited the armed forces, engineers, local residents, the relief centres and so on. It was most definitely not a photo opportunity, but an opportunity, as I discovered in County Durham on Wednesday and in Aberdeenshire on Friday, to thank those who had responded. Engineers had come from Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man to assist and we felt that it was right to go and thank them for their efforts. The Secretary of State is on a call at the moment with the Prime Minister and the head of Northern Powergrid.
On the response, the point here is that the mutual aid system is in place between the distribution network operators. The right hon. Member will know from his time as Secretary of State the importance of the mutual aid system—the NEWSAC, or North East South West Area Consortium, system—whereby different companies across the United Kingdom provide help to each other when a storm comes in. That is why engineers can be deployed right the way across the country. That is the most effective thing, because restoring power involves quite dangerous, health and safety-intensive work to restore overhead power cables, and those are the people one needs to be able to do the job.
The right hon. Member says it took a week to bring in the Army, but it is for the local resilience forum to say what the needs are locally. As soon as the local resilience forum in Aberdeenshire and that in Durham gave us the call, the Army was deployed very quickly indeed. He talks about investment, and I mentioned earlier that £60 billion has been invested in the network over the last eight years.
I learned at first hand on Wednesday in County Durham and on Friday in Aberdeenshire about the particular nature of this storm. There was the unusual wind speed and the fact that, rather than the prevailing south-westerly winds, the wind came in from the north-east, which makes a big difference for the power network. There was also the nature of the icing and the accumulation of icing on cables, which was a particular part of the storm. One of the engineers I spoke to in Durham on Wednesday described how he had experienced this particular set of circumstances only once before in his 35-year career in the industry.
Finally, on climate crisis, the right hon. Member is right: of course, there will be similar events like this and more of these events in the future. That is why we need to do everything we can—for example, with our net zero strategy in October—to make sure this country becomes more resilient to these kinds of events. We are currently doing the joint consultation with Ofgem on the future system operator, and that is exactly the kind of response that we need: a net zero strategy for how we equip the country overall, plus in particular how we make sure that the grid becomes more resilient to these kinds of events in the future.

David Duguid: I thank my right hon. Friend for his visit to Aberdeenshire on Friday, particularly to probably one of the hardest places to get to—I am not saying that Banff and Buchan is a hard place to get to—when we went to visit the engineers on the ground in a wooded area just outside the village of Methlick in my constituency. I think they really appreciated the visit from my right hon. Friend, and we certainly appreciated the work that they have put in.
I associate myself with my right hon. Friend’s remarks in his opening statement thanking those engineers as well as the resilience partnerships and emergency services. Will he join me in also thanking the local communities, individuals and community groups that have come out in force and shown community spirit, as they have done throughout the covid pandemic as well?
On the communications issue that a number of hon. and right hon. Members have raised, can I urge my right hon. Friend to make sure that the review that has been announced by Ofgem will look not only at the lessons learned and what went wrong with communications during this storm, but at what we can do in future to reach out to those who have become overly dependent on social media and handheld devices, and how we can go back to how we managed to communicate, say, 20 years ago?

Greg Hands: I thank my hon. Friend for that, and it was invaluable to have his assistance on Friday when visiting his community in Banff and Buchan. I met the SSE engineers at Methlick, and this is also a good  occasion to thank in particular Mike Coull from the Little Kitchen, who has been working flat out to provide free fish and chips to the community affected in Methlick. I thank my hon. Friend for everything that he has done to keep his constituents posted and to make sure he fulfils his role here in the House, scrutinising the UK Government.
It was also a pleasure in particular to meet in Aberdeenshire those who had come from across the UK to assist. I was talking to one of the engineers who had come up from Liverpool, and there was a genuine professional satisfaction in coming from right the way across the country to help people in their time of need. I saw that from right across the UK, and I think people were very thankful for that. I also join with my hon. Friend in thanking the local communities.
On the review, of course people have become more dependent on electricity. Generally, that can be a good thing for us, particularly with electric vehicles and electricity as a source of power, but we also need to recognise that greater dependence means a greater responsibility, which I am sure will be part of the joint BEIS-Ofgem review coming up.

Alan Brown: I, too, pay tribute to the fortitude of those who have been affected and the fantastic community support that has been provided, as well as to the workers doing the work and challenging the elements. However, the reality is that it is completely unacceptable for people to be without power for 10 days, and it is unacceptable for the Minister to stand here and say it is unacceptable—and that communications are unacceptable—without telling us what he is doing to sort out these unacceptable conditions.
With so many faults—way more than were predicted by modelling—what discussions have the Government had about whether the modelling is robust enough? What assessment are they making of the robustness of the network itself, of the recovery plans, and—we knew the storm was coming—of whether people understood the effects of the storm and other factors, such as trees being felled by the wind?
Customers and Parliament were given dates for when electricity would be restored, but those have proven to be wrong, so what assessment have the Government made of how the electricity companies have undertaken that work? It is quite clear that they did not have a grip of the situation. Was all the technology deployed that could have been deployed, such as drones and other remote working devices? Was sufficient tree-clearing equipment and labour deployed in the aftermath?
The Minister spoke about the mutual aid, but that clearly has not been sufficient to resolve the situation. It is quite clear that the Army should have been deployed more quickly. Why did the Government not offer the use of the Army? What compensation will be provided to customers, particularly hospitality business, and how will lessons learned be conveyed to Parliament? The Minister spoke about lessons learned from Storm Desmond. Why were those lessons not sufficient?

Greg Hands: As I mentioned, I spent Friday in Aberdeenshire seeing the situation on the ground. I was joined by Chris Burchell, the managing director of SSE, and I put him on the spot about his communications.  I think they were better in the first few days than those of Northern Powergrid, but it has been a difficult time for everyone concerned.
On the calling out of the Army, the hon. Gentleman will know that that is a role for the local resilience forum, the Grampian local resilience partnership. On Friday I also met Jim Savege, the chief executive of Aberdeenshire Council, who I think chairs or leads the local resilience partnership. He was very satisfied, I think, with the response of the Army and others. I met the 3 Scots when I was in Aberdeenshire; I understand that 45 Commando and the 39 Engineer Regiment have also been deployed. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will join me in thanking them for the work they have been putting in to help the community.
In terms of assistance—the NEWSAC scheme and the ability to deploy engineers from right across the United Kingdom—the hon. Gentleman may wish to reflect on the message from the industry about the importance of the UK response in being able to deploy people. A lot of engineers were deployed in Scotland; 630 were deployed from elsewhere in the UK. These are highly qualified, highly capable, very technical people. Two hundred and eighty-five of them came from the rest of the UK to Scotland, and 400 are currently in the north-east of England. I particularly want to minute my thanks for the efforts they have put in right across this United Kingdom.

Dehenna Davison: I thank the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) for securing the urgent question, and I thank Ministers for their extensive engagement over this horrendous crisis.
I associate myself with the concerns raised by my County Durham colleagues—not least the shock that I think we all felt at learning in a meeting with Durham County Council on Friday that the communications from Northern Powergrid had meant that the response from the local resilience forum was slowed by about five days. That meant we could not get boots on the ground or house-to-house support for the people who needed it. Five days wasted—that is an absolute disgrace. We really need to ensure that we hold Northern Powergrid’s heels to the flame for that one.
I reiterate what my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) said about ensuring that compensation will be paid before Christmas. It is a difficult time financially for so many, so if Ministers could add pressure on Northern Powergrid on that point, I know that it would be much appreciated by all those who have been affected.
I have two quick questions. First, what preparations are the Government undertaking, in conjunction with local resilience forums, for Storm Barra, which is going to hit over the next few days? Secondly, on the BEIS and Ofgem review, will the Minister expand a bit on what the consultation will look into, in terms of the infrastructure and its resilience? Will he also say whether the review will look into emergency provision to ensure that enough support—things such as emergency generators—is available to those who are hit in these horrible crises?

Greg Hands: I thank my hon. Friend for her engagement with me and the Secretary of State on behalf of her constituents, and in particular for making meetings at  relatively short notice. I agree that communications from Northern Powergrid were simply not good enough. I have reflected on that and we put that across strongly to Phil Jones.
On when compensation will be paid out, as I understand it, most is paid automatically, but it does take some time to process. I am told that it may take up to three months. I hope that it can be quicker, and I am sure that we can put that view across to the company.
It is not my job to be a weather forecaster, but we expect Storm Barra to hit the island of Ireland in particular. On preparations, an established process is in place whereby the NEWSAC committee would assess the likely landfall of the storm in the UK and start making preparations, often in conjunction with Ireland. I should also minute that engineers from the Republic of Ireland were in the UK helping out last week.
On reviews and resilience, previous reviews have of course led to important reforms. The 105 telephone number was created as a result of a previous review, as indeed was the NEWSAC network of mutual aid throughout the United Kingdom. Such reviews are strongly empowered, and while I would not want to prejudge what a review would look at, two things that I would expect it to look at carefully are communications and the resilience of the network in particular places.

Ian Lavery: I have to say that I am absolutely astonished that the Minister just gave an assurance that help is there, but went on to say that compensation will be available within three months. People in constituencies like mine, people in the north and people in Scotland—people who have been devastated by Storm Arwen—cannot wait three months. Let us be honest: it is an insult to the people who have been badly affected. Will the Minister look at ways and means of channelling much more financial support into badly affected constituencies so that the people at the bottom who have been devastated by this can receive compensation, not just for power cuts but for devastation to property, loss of property and so on?

Greg Hands: I thank the hon. Member for that contribution. I understand the passion that he feels, but a lot has been done on the ground. I saw for myself the provision of accommodation by hotels, inns, pubs and so on, as well as the provision of food and hot meals—everything from a cup of tea in a community hall. There has been a huge community response right across the affected regions. We have also worked closely with the British Red Cross in providing relief to people on the ground.
It is completely unacceptable that some people are still without power. I think that 99.8% of people have now been reconnected, but it is an unacceptable time for the 1,000 or more people who are still not reconnected. The Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and I have all said that. We obviously need to learn the lessons, and an established process is in place for that. I have already pointed out how previous such storms have led to really strong improvements to the system, and I would also expect that to be the case this time.

Andrew Bowie: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that it is quite rich to hear criticism from Scottish National party Members after it took the Scottish First Minister  four days to even comment on the fact there was an issue in the north-east of Scotland, given that the power went off. I join him and my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) in thanking the workers from Aberdeenshire Council, the emergency services, the armed forces and, of course, the Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks engineers who did a power of work to restore electricity to north-eastern Scotland.
Although a lot has been said about the resilience of the energy network and a review of that, will the Minister join me in looking into a review of the communications network? Part of the problem last week seemed to be that whether someone was able to report faults or was offline in their area depended on which mobile network they were on, so I ask for his support in calling for a review from Ofcom of the mobile communications network.

Greg Hands: I thank my hon. Friend for his invaluable assistance on Friday in Aberdeenshire. I do not think he and I will ever forget meeting the engineers who had been working up to 17-hour shifts just outside of Kemnay. They had been at that all week, including with help from right across the UK. My hon. Friend makes a very good point about the communications network. We have become more dependent on electricity and networks. I am sure that that will be part of the review to see what lessons might be learned and whether there can be other ways to approach the communications problem in future.

Grahame Morris: I might be able to enlighten the Minister, given his earlier comments about Met Office warnings, because we need to give it some credit: it was right on the ball originally about Storm Arwen regarding the wind strength, the timings and the wind direction. It has issued two warnings today, Minister, that tomorrow—7 December—Storm Barra will bring strong winds and snow to my constituency and further north.
Storm Arwen and the response have exposed the deep north-south divide in this country. Individuals and communities in my constituency—I have not had any ministerial visits—have been left without support for over a week. It took five days for the Secretary of State to make a statement, and he did not do that willingly. It was only after multiple requests through the Speaker from Members on both sides of the House from Monday onwards that the Secretary of State came to make a statement, and it took five days for a major incident to be declared. It is too easy to put all the blame on Northern Powergrid and poor comms. At every level, be it the Minister’s Department, local government, the resilience forum or Northern Powergrid, questions must be asked, and I believe that a public inquiry is the only independent and fair way to assess the whole scandal and hold all those involved accountable. Will he support a public inquiry?

Greg Hands: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s comments as a local MP, but I reject absolutely his allegation of some kind of north-south divide. The response was very swift from the engineers, and that was the most important part of the response. As I mentioned, 630 engineers came from across the UK. I put on record my thanks to Western Power Distribution—117 came from western  England and Wales—to Northern Ireland Electricity Networks, which sent 26 engineers, to the Isle of Man, and to the Electricity Supply Board in the Republic of Ireland, which sent 27.
The NEWSAC process started on the Friday before the storm came in. Obviously, time is needed to see the impact of the storm and where the engineers should be deployed from and to. Simply a forecast that a big storm is coming does not, in any sense, give a prediction of where the damage that will need to be repaired will be. The NEWSAC process is the right one. I have confidence in that and I want to minute again my thanks to the engineers from right across the United Kingdom who helped out by doing the incredibly difficult job of restoring and sometimes rebuilding—in Weardale, I saw a whole process of rebuilding the power line. We cannot underestimate the difficulty and very intensive nature of that job, particularly at a time of poor weather.

Neil Hudson: I thank my right hon. Friend and echo colleagues’ comments in thanking the Government, local government, the armed forces, volunteers and engineers for their efforts to help people during this dreadful crisis. I also pay tribute to the resilience of residents in Cumbria, elsewhere in the north of England and across Scotland for facing up to this dreadful crisis. I fear that that resilience will be tested again and again with more and more named storms coming. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that in the lessons learned process, we ensure that support for communities will get to them as soon as possible, in terms of generators and calling in the Army? We know in Cumbria, when we have flooding and such things as foot-and-mouth, that calling the Army in early is an important lesson to be learned, so whoever has the job of calling them in, please can we do that as quickly as possible?

Greg Hands: I thank my hon. Friend for his engagement throughout the process on behalf of his Cumbria constituents. He makes some very good points. We will be asking all Members to give their input into the lessons learned process, which might relate to anything from communications to extra resources. I can tell my hon. Friend that, at the peak, 755 generators were deployed in the most affected areas in the United Kingdom; that number is now approximately 500.
With respect to calling out the armed forces, it is principally a matter for the local resilience forum in the first case to make a local assessment of needs. I stress that repairing and rebuilding power lines is a job for engineers. With respect to other relief, other workers and other people who can provide support for local communities, it is a job for the local resilience forum to make an assessment.

Mary Foy: While power is slowly being restored to many of the villages in Durham, we face further disruption from Storm Barra. Constituents in villages such as Croxdale are now experiencing problems with internet access, badly affecting their ability to work from home and support disabled family members. Can the Minister promise my constituents that increased Government support will arrive immediately if Storm Barra causes further disruption? Will he do everything in his power to work with Openreach and providers to get internet access restored to my constituents as soon as possible?

Greg Hands: Of course we will be working, particularly with local resilience fora. The Secretary of State had a series of meetings on calls with local resilience fora through last week, learning and assessing at first hand what their needs are. If Storm Barra is of a similar magnitude or even anywhere close, I would expect that process to continue. With climate change, we can expect the frequency of such events to increase, and we need to make sure that local resilience fora are ready to meet those challenges.

Philip Hollobone: May I say very firmly to the Minister that it is simply unacceptable for customers to have to wait for up to three months for compensation payments? This is an accounting function—a billing function. It is easy to press the right button and get the compensation of £140 a day to these poor people before Christmas.

Greg Hands: I stress that I am not apologising on behalf of the companies, but it is “up to three months”; I hope that it will be a lot quicker. Of course the Secretary of State and I will engage with the distribution network operators to make sure that it is done as quickly as possible. Ofgem is engaging with them as well.

Richard Thomson: On the Minister’s visit to Aberdeenshire, he managed to visit Banff and Buchan, where he met the local MP, and west Aberdeenshire, where he met the local MP. As the Member for Gordon, I can only assume that my invitation must have been lost in the post somewhere.
When it comes to getting in military support, yes, it is for the local resilience partnerships to make the request, but as the Minister knows full well, a strict set of criteria has to be fulfilled before the request has a chance of being approved. As part of the review of this incident, will the Minister commit to looking at the criteria for military aid for the civilian authorities so that in any future event like this we stand a better chance of being able to deploy the military at an earlier stage, when they can arguably have the greatest impact?

Greg Hands: I am told that the hon. Gentleman’s office was informed that I was coming to Ellon in his constituency, but may I use this opportunity to thank the school in Ellon and particularly the local responders, the local resilience partnership and others who were there providing assistance? The local armed forces, 3 Scots, were there as well, providing really excellent help to the community.
Once the local resilience forum had called out, or said that it needed assistance, the response was incredibly fast: I think it took less than half a day to make that deployment. I talked to the military liaison officer in Aberdeen on Friday; she was absolutely clear that she is a keen member of the local resilience forum and as soon as the call went out, the response was extremely quick.

Andrew Bridgen: Given the fallout from Storm Arwen and the disruption to the power grid, will the Government use this opportunity to look into the feasibility of placing more power cables underground?

Greg Hands: My hon. Friend has asked a good question. The difference in cost between underground and overground is considerable, and such action would also be very disruptive. I think that a more organic approach should  be taken, involving working with the companies and the engineering resources that we have. In general, however, my hon. Friend is right: an underground grid will be more resilient than an overground grid, and I am sure that that too will feature in the review.

Karl Turner: Is this not about Northern Powergrid investing nothing in the network while stuffing its investors’ pockets with profits, and the Government allowing it to put profits before people?

Greg Hands: No, it is not. In the last eight years, the distribution network operators have invested about £60 billion in the network, and I am confident that the structure is right. I think that the way in which the companies collaborate in the NEWSAC mechanism works extremely well, and we should be thankful for the engineers and others who have been out there, including those operating the call centres. As I have said, I think that the communications, particularly in the first days, could have been much better, but I have no doubts about the structure of the market and the electricity network operators.

Dave Doogan: We all know that this was an exceptional storm with exceptional wind speeds coming from an unusual direction, and we all know that we owe a great debt of gratitude to the engineers and back-room staff who supported the recovery. However, my constituent Craig Fraser, from the north-west of Montrose, was without power for six days—it was restored on Thursday—and for the first four of those days, he could not obtain confirmation from SSEN that there was a problem in his area. What can the UK Government do to mandate minimum standards in surveys of damage caused to network lines after a storm and data logging of customers’ reports of outages?

Greg Hands: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that constructive question. I would say to his constituent Craig Fraser that I think it is unacceptable that it took him more than four days to get an answer from SSEN. After this session, I will give the hon. Gentleman the details of the dedicated contact at SSEN, if he does not already have it, and I will also try to raise the matter with the chief executive, Chris Burchell. A key aim of the review will be to look at why the communications were not as good as they should have been, particularly in those crucial first few days.

Chi Onwurah: The Secretary of State can make it to the north-east for a photo-opportunity, but he will not come here to answer our questions. If thousands of homes in the south-east were without power, he would be here.
Last month the Government showed their contempt for the north-east by failing to invest in our transport infrastructure, and now we see the consequences of their failure to invest in and support our energy infrastructure. Why were there not enough generators? Why were no proper plans in place? Does the Minister accept that the energy markets as they stand are not working for the north-east, and will he do something about it?

Greg Hands: I am sorry, but I do not accept that. First, it is not right to criticise the Secretary of State for going up to the north-east on a Sunday to see members  of the armed forces, and to thank the engineers and the community responders. As you will remember better than anyone, Mr Speaker, he came here last Wednesday to make a statement on the situation. There has not been a delayed response from the Secretary of State.
The hon. Lady also asked about generators. In fact, 755 were provided at the peak of the relief effort, and 500 are still being provided. I thought that she might join me in thanking some of those who are working so hard on the ground—not just the engineers, but those in the call centres. They are making tremendous efforts to ensure that those who have been disconnected are reconnected and that people have the help that they need in the short term, as well as ensuring that we learn the lessons of this unique storm.

Hilary Benn: Given that we are likely to see more severe storms, and even with the lessons learned from previous storms and the mutual aid system that the Minister has referred to, is not the review going to have to look at increasing capacity—I am talking about materials, machinery, generators, spares and people—in order to be able to deal with these events more effectively so that people do not have to wait so long to have their lights and heating put back on? Who does the Minister think has the principal responsibility for ensuring that that capacity is there when storms strike?

Greg Hands: The right hon. Gentleman raises some good points, but I do not want us to prejudge the review. He has mentioned quite a few things that he thinks we were short of. I think he is saying that we were short of generators, for example. I have already said that 750 generators were deployed. Of course we need to look at whether we have the right number of generators in terms of the capacity, but I would not want to prejudge that important review and the process behind it. Let us wait and let the review run its course. We have learned some really important lessons from previous reviews, for example on setting up a dedicated phone line, the mutual support and the network of engineers from across the country. Let us not prejudge that review.

Tim Farron: Thousands of us in communities across Cumbria have had a devastating 10 days that have been exhausting and even harrowing. I am pretty sure that all of us would agree with the calls for a public inquiry to learn the lessons. I think everyone agrees that lessons need to be learned. However, with Storm Barra approaching, those lessons need to be learned literally overnight, and those lessons are about timeliness as much as anything. Why did it take five days for the Government to come to this House and address the issue? Why did it take until the middle of last week to scramble and deploy additional generators, when that could have happened on the Saturday, eight or nine days ago, so that families were not without heat and light for so long? The relevance of the Army is that it is significant in boosting the capacity of the engineers and also in going from door to door to reach vulnerable people who had no telecoms whatsoever. They include elderly people with care needs who were tucked up in bed to try to stay safe. I want to say a massive thank you to the people in those communities who stepped up to this challenge, and to the engineers  who are out there making things better overnight, but what can the Minister say to my communities about how the Government will act to make things better next time?

Greg Hands: I do not think that a public inquiry is the right course. It would inevitably take a long time. It would be better to use the established and effective review mechanism that we already have in place, and I invite the hon. Member and all right hon. and hon. Members to participate in it and give their views. I would say that NEWSAC, the mutual aid scheme, was deployed as soon it practicably could be, actually in advance of the storm coming in. I think that that has worked well. On the role of the Army, it is principally a matter for the local resilience forums to make assessments of the resources they need and then to put in that call. From my experience in Aberdeenshire on Friday, I can tell the House that, when the local resilience forum put in that call, the response was close to immediate.

Ed Miliband: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you give me some guidance on the absence of the Secretary of State from this urgent question? Yesterday, he claimed to be getting a grip on this crisis, but today he has run away from answering questions in this House. The truth is that there are very serious issues here, and the Minister has had to come up with a hastily arranged “dog ate my homework” excuse in which he claims that the Secretary of State is on the phone to Northern Powergrid at the moment. He could have been on the phone before this urgent question or after it. This is an insult to the people in the north of England and an insult to this House.

Lindsay Hoyle: It is not for me to choose who comes to the Dispatch Box. It is up to the Government to decide who they provide, and the Minister was very thorough in his long answers to questions. You have also been in government, and you were the ones who chose who stood at the Dispatch Box. I do not think the points you raise will have gone amiss. You did say that the Secretary of State was meant to be on a phone call, and it was with the Prime Minister as well. I am sure people will check to see if that is the case, as I am sure it is. If the Minister says it is the case, it must be the case.

Kevan Jones: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) that it is disappointing the Secretary of State is not here to answer questions.
The Minister said he and the Secretary of State have visited affected areas. It is very strange that they visited only those with Conservative Members of Parliament. He got off the train in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy), and no doubt to get to Weardale you have to travel through my constituency, but they made no effort to go anywhere but where they have a Conservative MP. I am sorry, but politicising the crisis is not right.

Lindsay Hoyle: Do you want to answer, Minister?

Greg Hands: I will deal with it head on, because not only did I take a call from the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) on the Friday morning but I visited and talked to individuals in the call centre,  which is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), who was informed of my visit. So we actually visited there. On Friday, I visited Ellon, which is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson). So yes, we visited Conservative-held constituencies, but we also visited Labour and SNP-held constituencies. I urge the right hon. Member for North Durham to withdraw that allegation.

Lindsay Hoyle: I am not going to reopen the debate.

Richard Thomson: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. There is an important distinction to be drawn between visiting a constituency and inviting the MP to join you. I wonder how I might be able to correct the record, as the Minister said something that does not seem to be exactly in accord with how arrangements were made.

Lindsay Hoyle: This is becoming a political decision, which I do not want it to be. What I would say to Ministers is that, when they visit an affected constituency held by whichever political party, it is good order to see the MP, and it should not look like they are visiting the constituencies of just one political party. I am sure that would never happen and I am sure it will be resolved  in future.

Arthur Labinjo-Hughes

Nadhim Zahawi: With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement following the sentencing of the stepmother and father of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes on Friday.
The whole nation is distraught at Arthur’s tragic and horrific death. Across the House and across the country, we find it impossible to imagine how any adult could commit such evil acts against a child, particularly a parent or carer to whom the child looks for love and protection. I know colleagues and people outside this place are seriously troubled that Arthur was subjected to a campaign of appalling cruelty, and was murdered after concerns had been raised with local services.
I assure colleagues on both sides of the House and the public that I am as determined as they are to get to the truth, to expose what went wrong and to take any action necessary to protect children. To do so, serious questions need to be asked.
I make it clear that police officers, teachers, social workers, health workers and others go to work each day to try to make things better and to do their best at what are very difficult jobs. Those already serving our country’s most vulnerable children deserve our thanks, and I want to be extremely clear that no safeguarding professional should be the victim of abuse. The targeting of individuals is wrong and helps nobody, but that does not mean we should not seek to understand what went wrong and how we can stop it happening again.
The public deserve to know why, in this rare case, things went horrifyingly wrong and what more could be done to prevent abuse such as this from happening again. Since the horrendous deaths of Peter Connelly, Daniel Pelka and, sadly, others, the Government have established stronger multi-agency working, putting a shared and equal duty on police, councils and health in local areas to work together to safeguard and promote the welfare of children, alongside a role for schools. I am sure hon. Members across the House will recognise that improvements have been made from previous reviews, but the question now is whether that is enough.
In order to look at issues nationally as well as locally, we established the national Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel in 2017 for cases such as Arthur’s. Given the enormity of this case, the range of agencies involved and the potential for its implications to be felt nationally, over the weekend I asked Annie Hudson, chair of the national panel, to work with leaders in Solihull to deliver a single, national, independent review of Arthur’s death to identify what must be learned from this terrible case.
The review will encompass local government as well as those working in the police, health and education sectors. Officials in my Department are already in close contact with the Solihull safeguarding partnership, which is grateful for the support offered and agrees that this approach is the best way to deliver comprehensive national learning and identify any gaps that need to be addressed.
Annie and her colleagues on the national panel, who come from the police, health and children’s services, have dedicated their lives and decades-long careers to bettering the lives of the most vulnerable children in our society. I have every faith that their review will be  robust, vigorous and thorough. I have already assured Annie, as I assure you now, Mr Speaker, that she will be given all the support she needs to do the job properly.
The review will focus specifically on Arthur’s case and identify where improvements need to be made, but I also want to make certain we have looked at how all the relevant local agencies are working now, including how they are working together. For that reason, I have also asked Ofsted, the Care Quality Commission, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation to lead a joint targeted area inspection. I have asked that each of these inspectorates be involved because of the range of local services that had been involved in Arthur’s and his family’s life during the preceding months.
These joint inspections are well established, but a new and ambitious approach will be used, with a sharp focus on the entry point to the child protection system across all agencies. That will mean we can truly look at where improvements are needed by all the agencies tasked with protecting children in the Solihull area, so that we can be assured that we are doing everything in our power to protect other children and prevent such evil crimes.
As part of this inspection, all the agencies tasked with protecting children at risk of abuse and neglect in Solihull will have their effectiveness considered, and be instructed on where improvements must be made in Solihull and where learnings can be applied in other areas around the country. The inspectorates met today to plan the work and the work will begin next week. I, as well as officials in my Department and across Government, could not be taking this matter more seriously. I have been working this weekend to bring everyone together to make sure the work can start immediately. Over the coming days, we will publish terms of reference and timelines for the national review and local inspection.
More widely, we are already investing heavily to help the legions of dedicated professionals on the frontline to deliver the care that we all know every child deserves. Since the spending review in 2019, there have been year-on-year real-terms increases for local government, as well as the unprecedented additional £6 billion funding provided directly to councils to support them with the immediate and longer-term impacts of covid spending pressures, including children’s social care. Yet we have also known that the care system needed bold and wide-ranging reforms, which is why we have the independent review of children’s social care happening now. I know that Josh MacAlister, who leads that review, will make recommendations on what a decisive child protection response needs to look like, given that that sits at the core of the system he is reviewing. Importantly, the review will look at how social workers, especially those with the most experience, can spend time with families and on protecting children. We all know that social workers do their best work with families, not behind a desk.
I look forward to receiving the review’s recommendations in due course. In any complex system, it is imperative to investigate thoroughly to learn and improve that system. My mantra continues to be that sunlight is the best possible disinfectant, because if we are to improve services where they need improving, we must share data and evidence.
I thank the prosecuting barrister Jonas Hankin QC, his team and the jury for their service in this troubling case. As the court heard, Arthur’s tragic death was the result of the cruelty of his father and his father’s partner. No Government anywhere in the world can legislate for evil, but we will take action wherever we can to stop this happening again, because we must do more. To do more, I end my statement with a plea to everyone in our country: anyone who sees or suspects child abuse can report their concerns to local children’s services or by contacting the Government-supported National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children helpline for adults or practitioners who are concerned about a child or young person. So if you see or suspect child abuse, report it. If you are worried about a child you know, report it. If something appears off, or you see something that troubles you, report it.
As we uncover what went wrong and what led to Arthur’s tragic death, we must also strengthen our resolve to make sure that we prevent these crimes as much as they possibly can be prevented. We must make sure that those who would do wicked acts to children face justice. We must do absolutely everything in our power to protect vulnerable young children from harrowing and evil abuse. I commend this statement to the House.

Bridget Phillipson: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.
This has been a truly horrendous case. My heart goes out to everyone who knew and loved Arthur and to all those involved in investigating and bringing to justice the depraved and wicked individuals responsible for his death. I join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to the frontline workers right across children’s social care who work so hard to support families day in, day out.
I welcome the announcement by the Attorney General’s Office that the sentences handed down on Friday will be reviewed under the unduly lenient sentence scheme, and I welcome the Secretary of State’s clear determination to get to the bottom of what has happened and his action in ordering a national review and a joint targeted area inspection. It is right to put in place as soon as possible inquiries into not merely how individual agencies acted but how they acted together.
It is vital that whatever lessons can be learned from what happened and did not happen in Solihull are acted on as soon as possible. Searching questions must be asked about the way in which services operated locally, but questions must also be asked nationally—questions about how the services that should be keeping children safe are overseen and about why, tragically, cases such as this keep happening.
I know that the Secretary of State takes these issues just as seriously as I do. I very much hope he will urgently review the way in which services are inspected, challenged and improved. I ask the Secretary of State, who has not been in his post for too long, also to ensure that his own Department gets its house in order.
In 2016, the Department committed to a target, which was that by 2020
“all vulnerable children, no matter where they live, receive the same high quality of care and support, and the best outcome for every child is at the heart of every decision made.”
The then permanent secretary told the Public Accounts Committee that this target was delayed until 2022 because the Department did not have a detailed plan in place to deliver it. The Committee found that the Department had made only limited progress in improving the quality of children’s social care services. In 2019, the permanent secretary accepted that having nearly 60% of local authorities rated lower than “good” by Ofsted for children’s social care was “terrible”. Indeed, he told the Public Accounts Committee:
“I am not able to sit in front of you and say that there will be no councils failing their Ofsted inspections in 2022. Clearly, there will be. Some schools fail, some hospitals fail and some councils fail.”
Failure should never be an acceptable outcome for any public service, and that is especially true when it comes to protecting children. For too long, this Government have tolerated failing children’s services and a failure to protect children. Vulnerable children are being failed, and that cannot go on.
The Secretary of State must now set out how he plans to tackle that culture—that failing services are acceptable in our country, acceptable for our children—in his own Department just as much as in Solihull. That is the challenge that he faces, and that is the standard by which he will be judged.
I have one final point. We have heard a lot in recent days about the unimaginable suffering that this little boy endured at the hands of two evil individuals who brought an end to his short life. I hope that we can remember also how, in better days, Arthur lived his short life. I hope that, while we do not hesitate to learn from these tragic events, we also, as far as we can, remember Arthur for who he was, not for what others did to him or for how he was let down. I hope that when we hear his name, we think first of a gentle, caring, happy child, the little boy who was remembered so movingly by so many across our country this weekend, the little boy with the beaming smile who should still be here with us today.

Nadhim Zahawi: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her words, and especially for her final few sentences about the way that we should remember Arthur, and the fact that there are family members grieving for him today.
The hon. Lady makes a powerful point about making sure that we continue on the path to improvement. Having spent a good amount of time as Children and Families Minister in the Department, I think that the team has really focused on those improvements in children’s social care. The hon. Lady said that we have a long way to go. I recognise that there are challenges, but it is also worth praising the teams both in the Department and in local government up and down the country. Not that long ago, only about 37% of local authorities had a good Ofsted inspection. The one thing I would correct her on is that it is not so binary as pass and fail, because, actually, it is very much about areas of improvement in children’s social care. That 37% has now risen to 57% of local authorities that have a good inspection.[Official Report, 16 December 2021, Vol. 705, c. 5MC.] Of course, we will have to continue on that path and keep going further. None the less, I am very pleased to see her supporting the course of action that we are taking today.

Lindsay Hoyle: We now come to the Chair of the Education Committee, Robert Halfon.

Robert Halfon: I strongly endorse what the Secretary of State has set out about the review, and I also welcome the comments, particularly the moving comments at the end, of the shadow Secretary of State.
As I understand it, Arthur was not in school—he had been kept at home by his father—when this tragedy happened. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will know that, putting aside the 200,000 children sent home because of covid, who are known about by the school system, there are another 100,000 ghost children, as I call them, who are lost in the system. They not returned to school for the most part, and are potentially subject to safeguarding hazards—county lines gangs, online harms and, of course, awful domestic abuse.
Will my right hon. Friend ensure that we are not discussing these issues again in this House following a further tragedy similar to the one that we have just heard about? Will he proactively make a real effort to work with the local authorities, the schools and the regional commissioners to make sure that those 100,000 children, who are mostly not in school, are returned to school and are watched by the appropriate authorities? We must get those children back into school, otherwise we may face—I hope not—further tragedies along the way.

Nadhim Zahawi: My right hon. Friend, the Chair of the Education Committee, is absolutely right to raise this concerning issue, which is a focus for my Department; I am working closely with other Departments and agencies to work through it. He will know that we launched the See, Hear, Respond programme, which is aimed at supporting vulnerable children and young people whose usual support networks were impacted by the pandemic and national restrictions. The tragedy for Arthur is that he was never off the school register. Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend’s point is a powerful one.

Carol Monaghan: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.
It is unusual that we are here in this House with so much cross-party agreement on an issue, but the Secretary of State spoke from the heart and with a genuine desire for change, and I hope that we can be supportive of that. I join him in commending those who brought Arthur’s killers to justice, and offer my condolences and those of Scottish National party Members to Arthur’s family and loved ones.
This tragic death has affected us all. The footage of the little boy saying, “No one loves me” will remain with many of us; I think that parents hugged their own children a lot harder when they heard that. We are shocked for two reasons: first that these people exist and were put in charge of such an innocent little soul; and, secondly, that opportunities were missed that would have prevented this tragedy. The Government review is important, but if failings are found to be due to resourcing, will the Secretary of State commit to funding child protection services properly and directly? It is not enough that such services come through councils. If direct Government funding is needed, will he ensure that that happens?
The Secretary of State talked about agencies working together. How is he going to monitor how well that actually happens? There has to be cross-party working on this issue, so will the Secretary of State today assure us  that he will genuinely listen to cross-party recommendations and suggestions for improvement? None of us wants to have another Arthur, Baby P or Victoria Climbié, so let us do the best of politics on this issue and ensure that no other vulnerable children are harmed.

Nadhim Zahawi: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for so generously offering cross-party support. I hope that she will remember that I always worked on a cross-party basis to co-operate and co-ordinate when I was Vaccine Deployment Minister. I hope that, through the Josh MacAlister review, we can ensure that we reach out across the House and share thoughts, as well as through the two reviews that are specific to the tragic death of young Arthur.

Julian Knight: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and for his engagement over the last 72 hours.
“No one loves me” and “no one is going to feed me”: those are the words that broke the heart of my town, and, it seems, of our country as well. A young lad who never had a chance; he experienced unimaginable brutality in his short life. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that no stone will remain unturned and no difficult question unasked, that this investigation will proceed without fear or favour, and that at the end of it we will know clearly and publicly who failed Arthur and how he was failed? In addition, will he ensure that the investigation focuses on the clear breakdown in partnerships between the likes of social services, the police and educators? Why on earth were they not talking to each other? At the very least, we owe it to Arthur that every lesson from this horrific tragedy is learned and that no town has its heart broken like Solihull has had.

Nadhim Zahawi: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s words. The words of Arthur have, I know, torn the heart of the nation. I assure him that both reviews will be able to go wherever they need to. I hope that he agrees with me that transparency is the best disinfectant in this case. I thank and commend him for making himself available at all times when we needed to make contact and discuss with him and his office what we were planning to announce in the House.

Emma Lewell-Buck: Little Arthur’s murder has really affected those of us who have direct experience of working closely with abused children. It is a matter of record that when the Secretary of State was Children’s Minister and I was his shadow, I repeatedly warned him that pursuing this Government’s agenda of cuts, increasing bureaucracy, deregulation and privatisation of child protection would cost a child’s life. Like his predecessors, he ignored me. However, I know that the Secretary of State is a genuinely caring man, and I certainly do not have all the answers here, but will he please meet me so that we can at last work together to make sure that no other precious little life is so brutally taken again?

Nadhim Zahawi: I would be delighted to meet the hon. Lady. I think her characterisation is slightly unfair in the sense that we work towards improving the system, and the teams both in the Department and on the  frontline do tremendous work. We worked on Step Up to Social Work and Frontline, which delivered thousands of new entrants into the social care system. Since 2017 we have seen an uplift of 10% in the social care workforce, which I hope she will agree is to be commended.[Official Report, 16 December 2021, Vol. 705, c. 6MC.] But I am very happy to meet her because I know she cares passionately about this subject.

Saqib Bhatti: I stand with great sadness today. My constituents in Meriden who are served by Solihull Council have been devastated by the death of Arthur. My thoughts go out to those who loved him, and I pay tribute to that young boy with that beautiful smile.
I welcome the announcements of the inspection and the review today. I do not think any Member of Parliament ever wants to be standing here addressing circumstances such as this. I completely agree on the Attorney General’s review of the sentencing. I have to admit that many times over the past few days I have thought they should lock them up and throw away the key. Unfortunately we have been here before. What reassurances can my right hon. Friend give to my constituents that the inquiry will bring meaningful change that will protect children like Arthur in future?

Nadhim Zahawi: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s important question. I reassure him that both reviews will be thorough and will be shared with the House, but will also feed into Josh McAlister’s overall review of children’s social care. I have to say that 29 years minimum for the murderer of Arthur, and 21 years for his father, is what the court could deliver, but I know that the Attorney General has had a request to look again at the leniency of that sentence.

Diane Abbott: The Secretary of State said earlier that he will do anything it takes to protect children, so can he assure the House that if it transpires that one of the main issues behind the horrific and cruel death of this child was not enough social workers and too much pressure on existing social workers, he will make the case to his colleagues in Government to make the right level of resources available?

Nadhim Zahawi: I am grateful for the right hon. Lady’s question. I thank the 34,000 social workers who, today and every day, are out protecting young people. We continue to look to bring more people into the profession; as I mentioned, there has been a 10% rise since 2017. Whatever the reviews recommend—including of course the McAlister review—that is exactly the thing that we will look to implement.

Tim Loughton: I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am sure the Secretary of State shares my sense of déjà vu. This tragic case reveals familiar failings raised: 12 years ago, by Lord Laming in his report into Baby P and how we need to have better joint working; 11 years ago, when we started publishing serious case reviews so that we can all learn from them; and 10 years ago, when I launched the Munro review—crucially, not as a knee-jerk reaction to a recent tragedy—to free up social workers from the bureaucracy that was keeping them from eyeballing and  face-to-face time with those vulnerable families. While definitely welcoming the Government’s determination to respond urgently with a review, may I suggest that first the Secretary of State reviews why the findings of previous reviews have not been acted on or why the system has not allowed the necessary changes to happen?

Nadhim Zahawi: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question. He has what I would describe as institutional memory of the children’s social care system. His work as Children and Families Minister in the Department has remained invaluable. He is right to challenge us on ensuring that what we intend to implement from those reviews, including the Munro review—the Department accepted the majority of its recommendations—then happens operationally on the ground to reflect that. That is equally important, and that is why the MacAlister review is so important. It deals with the operational challenges, so that we can turn some of this stuff into reality on the ground.

Steve McCabe: I thank the Secretary of State for the tone of his statement. As someone who once did this work, I am loth to start picking on individuals; I do understand. I want to say to him that leadership in this kind of work is very important, and I hope that some aspect of the inquiry will look at senior management appointments and the apparent senior managerial merry-go-round, which can allow someone to leave a failing department and assume an almost identical post in a neighbouring authority.

Nadhim Zahawi: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his important question. The reviews will look at all aspects of the failures in this tragic case. It is worth reminding the House that directors of children’s services work also very closely with chief execs and lead members. From my time as Children and Families Minister, I remember that it is that combination of leadership that delivers the right outcomes that we want to see, but the review will look at that as well.

Dr Caroline Johnson: I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I am a children’s doctor. Arthur’s case has shocked and saddened all of us, but as Members have already said, we have been here before with similar cases. In my career, I have seen and looked after far too many children who have been injured and hurt by those who are supposed to love them and care for them the most. I welcome the Secretary of State’s review and I hope it will successfully reduce the number of cases. I want to focus my question on justice in particular, because I have seen cases where we have identified problems, but people have been let down, either because the Crown Prosecution Service has accepted lesser pleas to avoid court cases—I remember in one case, the barrister did not know the name of the children he had come to represent in local care proceedings—or sentences have been passed that have been hideously too low for the severity of the heinous crimes committed. When the Secretary of State is doing his review, can he confirm that he will be working with the Ministry of Justice on these cases, too?

Nadhim Zahawi: I can certainly confirm that we will be working with Ministers across Government on this.

Munira Wilson: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, the sentiments expressed within it and the actions he is taking. Like everyone else, I have found the details of this case harrowing, not least because Arthur was the same age as my daughter. It is just unbelievable, and my thoughts are with all those who knew and loved him. Given that we know that among the social worker workforce there is a high turnover rate, a 7.5% vacancy rate and a quarter of that workforce is due for retirement in the next 10 years, will the Secretary of State commit, whether through this review or the MacAlister review, to looking at the recruitment, retention and training of social workers? Given that their workload has gone up while there have been some £2.2 billion of cuts to social services over the past decade, will he commit to whatever resources it takes? We cannot put a price on a child’s life.

Nadhim Zahawi: The hon. Member is absolutely right that we need to ensure that we continue to retain the more experienced social worker leadership, and I hope that the MacAlister review will make some operational recommendations on that. Of course, we had two successful schemes with Frontline and Step Up to Social Work, which resulted in thousands of people coming into the social care profession and the number of social workers going up by 10% since 2017. She is right that if we look at the system overall, we have far too many agency workers, which I think is her point. We want that experience and leadership to be working full time in a local authority system rather than on an agency basis.

Lucy Allan: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and his tone throughout. I know that he was passionate about child safeguarding as Children’s Minister and that children are in safe hands with him at the helm, so I am grateful for that.
This horrific case shows that fundamental reform of children’s social care is long overdue. Lessons learned and case reviews are not enough. Does the Secretary of State agree that the problems with children’s social care are systemic and that the challenges faced are not just about funding? Does he agree that scapegoating individuals, particularly inexperienced social workers, will not improve the care of the most vulnerable children?

Nadhim Zahawi: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that we must ensure that we deliver better outcomes. We recognise that, which is why we made a manifesto pledge to have the MacAlister review. I am confident that the review will deliver recommendations that I hope we can be ambitious about and deliver rapidly.
My hon. Friend is also right that we cannot continue to have review after review. We have to learn from them and operationally implement the recommendations. I am passionate that, in complex systems, we must have thorough investigations, because that is how they are improved and made failsafe for those they protect.

Barry Sheerman: When I was the Chair of the Education Committee for 10 years, we heard about some awful tragic cases such as this. My heart goes out to little Arthur and anyone who knew him. I like the tone of the Secretary of State’s opening remarks. When the investigation about baby P—baby Peter—went on, there was a hue and cry from the  popular media that some politicians joined. I still have a guilty conscience about the way that Sharon Shoesmith was hounded out of office. We have never apologised for what happened to her.
The Secretary of State will know that good children’s services and good multi-agency working are expensive. We need the resources in local government to deliver. When I was the Chair of the Select Committee, one of the most worrying things was the reluctance to square up to the fact that we should know where every child in our country is. Home schooling has put a big question mark over knowing what is happening to children in the home environment. Does he share my concern and could we have a conversation about that at a later date?

Nadhim Zahawi: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his very important question. Just to unpack a little bit of it, I think he is right to say that we need to make sure we know where every child is. There are some excellent examples of home schooling with parents who really do a great job, but that is not always the case. I know that he cares passionately about the work of children’s social services, and I hope that he will continue to care about this when he leaves this place, as he has announced he is doing. He will be sorely missed, I think, and his input will be missed.
On the hon. Member’s point about local councils, in this year’s and next year’s budgets, they have about £51.3 billion of core spending power for their services. They have had a real-terms increase for what they can do, with the £6 billion to cope with covid as well. Nevertheless, I think it is important that we do not scapegoat anyone, and he is absolutely right that we have to make sure we allow both the panel and the review to take their course and report back to this House.

Bob Blackman: I would go back a little longer than other people, and refer to the Jasmine Beckford case, as well as the Victoria Climbié case, the Baby Peter case and now that of Arthur. The one common theme throughout this whole terrible series of events is that the opportunities to take a child to safety were missed. Will my right hon. Friend make sure that the message goes out to frontline children’s social workers that if they have a suspicion—a suspicion—of a child being abused, it will be thoroughly investigated, and if necessary that child will be removed to a place of safety?

Nadhim Zahawi: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question. He is right to remind us of the cases of Beckford, Climbié and now, tragically, Arthur. I think social workers are doing a tremendous job, and I think it is important that multi-agency work—for whatever reason, and we will find out through these two reviews—missed Arthur in this case and did not take him away. The father and partner were obviously evil and manipulative, but nevertheless we have to make sure, if there is any evidence, any inkling, any iota of harm to any child, that the child is taken away immediately.

Kerry McCarthy: Some 300,000 children a year are affected by parental imprisonment and, as I understand it, Arthur was one of them, so  what this case highlights is the lack of a statutory mechanism to identify and support such children. The moment he was put in his father’s charge—I will not say his father’s care—that identification and support should have been there. I am due to meet the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Colchester (Will Quince), to discuss this on Monday, but can I urge the Secretary of State that the issue needs flagging up within the review?

Nadhim Zahawi: The hon. Lady raises an important point. I know from my time as children and families Minister that she has been campaigning on this issue and I know she is meeting the Minister for children and families on Monday, but I will certainly take a very close look at what she says and feed back to the panels.

Kelly Tolhurst: I must declare that my sister is a social worker. No one can understand how beautiful little Arthur died at the hands of the people who were charged with caring for him. I have great respect for my right hon. Friend, and I know that he will be absolutely determined in his passion to get at exactly why this happened and the learnings we can take forward. However, does he agree with me that it is now finally time really to look at and deal with the case load that these social workers have to deal with? Some of them have excessive case loads with very complex cases. Can we finally give social workers the confidence, the safety and the time to be able to do the job that they love and get up every morning for to keep children safe?

Nadhim Zahawi: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s incredibly important question. She will, I hope, remember that, when I was children and families Minister, I was the champion of social workers, and I will continue to be the champion of social workers as Secretary of State. I am very confident about the MacAlister review—hence why it was such a priority for us for it to be in our manifesto. It is so important that we now get this right, and case loads are very much a part of that, as she quite rightly identifies.

Karl Turner: The most important job the state must have is to protect vulnerable children, but social care faces a mounting crisis. I know the Secretary of State, and I trust entirely that he will do everything in his power to get to the bottom of what led to this terrible tragedy, but will he please at least acknowledge that the 60% cuts to local authorities in the past decade are potentially having a dramatic impact on these services?

Nadhim Zahawi: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I will always go where the evidence leads. The reason why we asked Josh MacAlister to conduct the review prior to the tragic murder of this innocent young boy is that we want to make sure that we deliver a system that is fit for purpose. We have made more funding available, but it depends what the review comes back with, and I will certainly return to the Dispatch Box and go through that with colleagues to make sure that we get this right.

Simon Hoare: May I say, as many have, what a relief it is that my right hon. Friend is at the helm on this issue? This has been a bone-chilling case. He was right in his statement to say that no  Government anywhere in the world can legislate for evil, and we have seen evil in this case. We also know that hard-working professionals cannot be everywhere all the time.
Quite rightly, the campaign to end violence against women and girls has a high national profile and commands the respect of Ministers across Government. May I urge my right hon. Friend to begin such a crusade to combat neglect and violence against children, so that, as others have noted, the precautionary principle—the taking away of a child if there is a scintilla of a doubt—is at the forefront of people’s minds, the resources are available, and the law stands four-square behind them?

Nadhim Zahawi: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question and suggestion. I would certainly like to take that away, and to work on a cross-party basis to make it culturally unacceptable for children to be neglected, harmed or abused in any way.

Florence Eshalomi: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and his commitment to get to the bottom of this. I associate myself with all the remarks made by Members across the House. Like many Members, I have two young children; I hugged my six-year-old and four-year-old that little bit tighter this weekend, in just so much sadness.
I have highlighted in the House before the shortcomings in the safeguarding system, which need to be addressed, but I would also like to draw the House’s attention to young girls and young children who are in vulnerable situations and, in some cases, are not known to the authorities. I have highlighted the problem with hidden gang-associated girls, many of whom are never picked up. Will the Secretary of State ensure that all children at risk of violence and exploitation are identified and properly cared for?

Nadhim Zahawi: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her moving words about her own children; I felt exactly the same way this weekend about my nine-year-old daughter. The hon. Lady highlights a very important point. The MacAlister review is very much about making sure that we have a system that is decisive when it comes to the protection of children.

Laura Trott: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. I ask him to be mindful—I know he will be—of learning the lessons from other tragic cases, particularly that of Baby P, where we saw a massive increase in referrals and in the number of children taken away from the care that they were in. We need an increase in resources for social workers in the near term to handle that increase in referrals, and I do think that a balance needs to be struck between taking children away from their parents, or the home that they are in, and making sure that they are safe. Will he ensure that he sends that message to social workers?

Nadhim Zahawi: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s important question. She is absolutely right about how social workers identify support networks for children—I have seen them do that brilliantly. Of course, if there is a scintilla of doubt in terms of any harm being caused to a child, they absolutely should be taken away. She also makes an important point about learning from  previous cases and the additional work that will now be placed on the social work frontline. We are cognisant of that, and I know that the Minister for children and families is looking at how we can continue to support the frontline.

John Martin McDonnell: Unfortunately, we are too good at setting up reviews and blaming others. This House needs to take some responsibility. In March 2018, my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) published a report with me, based on consultation with children’s charities, local government and social work professionals. It said that, after £2 billion-worth of cuts, children were at risk and could not be protected. We put forward proposals for the Budget that year, in the following year and in the following year.
We have seen a 40% cut in early interventions on children. We all get emotional about this—I was on childcare for 15 years and dealt with children who had been abused, and I never, ever want to see it again. I do not doubt the Secretary of State’s sincerity—we have worked with him and in most cases he has done a good job where he has been—so this is a message through him to the Chancellor: we need an emergency funding package for children’s services now. We cannot wait months for another review. Social workers are overworked and, actually, underpaid and disrespected. We need them to be properly funded and supported.

Nadhim Zahawi: I would respectfully say that I do not think anybody in this House would ever disrespect the social work workforce or any social worker. I also think that evidence-based strategy is important, and that is why the MacAlister review is so important. It is worth remembering that local government’s core spending is increasing by an average of 3% in real terms each year for the spending review period. So more money is going into local government, but, depending on what the MacAlister review delivers, I would certainly be the first to make the argument for properly resourcing children’s social care.

David Simmonds: May I, like others, thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the tone of the statement? Does he agree that the Children Act 1989, which provides the main legislative and operational underpinning of children’s social care, is perhaps in need of updating? Does he have a view about how that might happen?
Further, picking up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight), does he agree that it is a weakness in our local safeguarding partnership model that schools and education are not a statutory safeguarding partner?

Nadhim Zahawi: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who I know has deep experience in the area. He is right that we need to carefully consider all possible routes to help ensure that children’s social care has the powers that it needs to protect vulnerable children like Arthur. It is important that we wait for both reviews before we look to make specific legislative improvements. We obviously need to ensure that the national panel report and the findings of the joint targeted area inspection come back. Of course, we also have the independent MacAlister review. I will not rule out legislative changes if we need to make them.

Andrew Gwynne: May I also thank the Secretary of State for the tone of the statement? He keeps mentioning increases in local government core funding in the spending review period, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said, that does not outstrip a decade of damage that has left a perfect storm for children’s services alongside increasing demand and ballooning case loads for social workers. There are massive pressures in the system. I ask him sincerely to go to the Chancellor, to make the case for children’s services and to get the additional resource that is so desperately needed so that no vulnerable child is failed as little Arthur was.

Nadhim Zahawi: I am grateful for the hon. Member’s question. Funding is one important part of the equation—absolutely—but equally important is making sure that we look at what went wrong and why, and how we will fix that operationally. People such as Martin Narey, who I was speaking to during the week, would say to the House that this is about not only funding, but making sure we have the operational competence to support children’s social care and the frontline in doing their job. Social workers tell me all the time that the best place for them is working with families, rather than dealing with all the bureaucracy that sits behind this.

Nickie Aiken: I have never met a social worker who does not go to work every day to make a difference to the people they serve. I fear that, in this nation, we do not always hold social workers in the high regard that we do teachers, police officers, nurses and doctors, and that needs to change. As a former cabinet member for children’s services, I believe fully that this is about local accountability and that local councillors, whether the lead member or the leader of the council, have a role to play in keeping children safe. This is not just about the directors of children’s services and the social workers. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is about time that the Department for Education worked with the Local Government Association and other organisations in local government to ensure that cabinet members and council leaders really appreciate the role that they have to play in keeping our children safe?

Nadhim Zahawi: I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent question; I touched on the answer a bit earlier. She is absolutely right—I have seen really good evidence of high-performing children’s services when the chief executive and the lead member work to support the director of children’s services and the frontline, and really understand how the system works in their locality. I can reassure her that I and the Minister responsible for children and families, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince), will leave no stone unturned in the work we do on this with local government.

Cat Smith: I agree with the Secretary of State that our experienced social workers need to spend more time working with families and not be stuck behind a desk doing paperwork, but a direct consequence of more than a decade of cuts to local government is that experienced social workers have left the profession because of feeling overburdened by rising caseloads. It is also directly because of those cuts that they have to do more paperwork, and we can  see that pattern emerging in 10 years of research by the British Association of Social Workers. I invite the Secretary of State to make time for a meeting with me, as an officer of the all-party group on social work, and the BASW to discuss the things that we can do to encourage the retention and recruitment of social workers, so that we can have experienced social workers working directly with families.

Nadhim Zahawi: I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s question. I will certainly make time for that, as will the Minister responsible for children and families, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester. She raises a really important point. When I held that portfolio, I remember that we had What Works in children’s social care, which was an evidence-led approach to the issue. I am very happy to look at the evidence that she and the APPG can provide, as well as to bring the team that is leading on What Works in children’s social care.

Kieran Mullan: Like many others, I found myself in tears at the weekend thinking about what happened to poor little Arthur. I welcome the fact that the sentences will potentially be reviewed, but we should not get over-optimistic. At best, we might see an increase of a few years, because sentencing practice in this country falls woefully short of what most people think of as justice in cases such as this. Every person I have spoken to and everyone who has contacted me wants to see both these despicable individuals locked up for the rest of their lives. I hugely welcome the changes that we are making on premeditated child murder so that someone should expect a whole-life tariff, but does my right hon. Friend agree that any adult who murders a child should expect to spend the rest of their life in prison, regardless of whether it was premeditated?

Nadhim Zahawi: I know that my hon. Friend feels strongly about the issue, which he and I have discussed recently. Quite rightly, he reminds the House that last week the Government announced that we will amend the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill to include Tony’s law, which will increase the maximum penalty for child cruelty and for causing or allowing serious physical harm to a child from 10 to 14 years’ imprisonment, and the maximum penalty for causing or allowing the death of a child from 14 years to life imprisonment.

George Howarth: I congratulate the Secretary of State on the thoughtful but determined way in which he has approached this tragic situation. He mentions the need for multi-agency working. I am sure he is right about that, but might I suggest that the review looks at the possibility of placing a duty on those agencies to share information, because that seems to have been a problem in this case, and of establishing a mechanism whereby information received is properly assessed to see what further steps should be taken? As others have said, we need the resources to make a system like that work.

Nadhim Zahawi: The right hon. Gentleman raises a really important issue. Although there is a duty to work together and to share information, I want the investigation to look at how well that is working and how we can improve it. Clearly in this case it has not worked, which is why we have lost poor Arthur.

Jane Hunt: If it takes a village to raise a child, let us not make it the case that a whole village has to raise the issue before concerns are addressed. May I ask my right hon. Friend whether the review will look at outcomes rather than following rules? Let us allow multi-agency groups to be bold, make bold decisions and have the confidence that we will support them.

Nadhim Zahawi: My hon. Friend raises a fundamental issue, which is that the system needs to have the confidence and ability to safeguard, protect and build on relationships that a child may have with other family members via kinship care, if necessary, or otherwise. That comes through high-quality leadership, which is why that was so much the focus of my work when I was Minister for Children and Families. I know that the present Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, continues that work, but my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt) is right that the review should look at it too.

Janet Daby: I have 15 years of experience in children’s social care as a social worker. I thank the Secretary of State for saying that he will be a champion for social workers. The death of Arthur is absolutely tragic.
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. However, it is not a new phenomenon that social workers are overworked and spend most of their time doing bureaucratic work. The Munro review, Louise Casey and Josh MacAlister have stated that social workers spend far too much time on the bureaucracy of their work instead of being with families. Social workers are overworked. What interim measures will the Secretary of State put in place now? What are the timescales for when the review will be completed?

Nadhim Zahawi: I thank the hon. Lady for her 15 years of service as a social worker. She is absolutely right. In the first quarter of next year, there will be a reduction in that bureaucracy; that is coming down the line even before the review.[Official Report, 16 December 2021, Vol. 705, c. 6MC.] She is also right to say that there is too much bureaucracy. I will never forget going out with a brilliant social worker in Brighton who is a phenomenon, doing incredible work with the most vulnerable young people. She said to me privately, “I know I shouldn’t be saying this to you, because you’re the Minister, but I’m not good at using some of these technologies and this bureaucracy. That’s why I’m finding it so difficult, so I’m going to retire.” That is the sort of thing that I think the MacAlister review needs to look at very thoroughly.

Mark Jenkinson: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and his commitment to leave no stone unturned in this tragic case. In my constituency of Workington, teachers often find themselves on the frontline of social work; I put it on the record that I am the husband of a teaching assistant. Some of our secondaries are pilots for the social workers in schools project. We know that early intervention is key, so will my right hon. Friend look at rolling out the social workers in schools project to primaries across Cumbria as well?

Nadhim Zahawi: I will certainly take a good look at that pilot. In my time as the Minister for Children and Families, I saw similar projects that did tremendous work in schools with the most vulnerable children and their families.

Mick Whitley: I, too, thank the Secretary of State for the tone of what he has said this afternoon.
The tragic death of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes has shocked and grieved our nation and served as a painful reminder that not nearly enough has been done to protect vulnerable children since the death of Baby P more than a decade ago. Lord Laming, who chaired the inquiry into the death of Victoria Climbié, has warned that 10 years of austerity measures have seriously undermined the ability of social services to protect the young people most at risk of serious harm. Does the Secretary of State agree that urgently restoring funding lost since 2010 is essential if we are to stop any other child from suffering as Arthur so tragically did?

Nadhim Zahawi: I think it important to note the £4.8 billion that local government will receive over the spending review period, but I hope the MacAlister review will give us an opportunity to look at how we can make the best use of funding operationally, and also to understand where the bureaucracy lies in order to free up the frontline and make social work an attractive profession. All that work will continue apace once we receive the review.

Matt Rodda: I want to offer my deepest condolences to little Arthur’s family and friends. As colleagues throughout the House have said today, this is a truly dreadful case.
I thank the Secretary of State for his tone and his commitment on this important issue, but I should like to hear more from him about his willingness to leave no stone unturned and do whatever it takes in exploring how we can support these vital public sector workers who need so much help and encouragement at this difficult time. Will he look into social workers’ pay, the numbers of social workers and the integration of different agencies, and will he indeed leave no stone unturned—which should include looking at his own Department?

Nadhim Zahawi: I am grateful to the hon. Member, and I thank all colleagues for the input and the tone of these important exchanges.
The MacAlister review is looking at exactly those issues—how we can ensure that we deliver the best outcome, and the support that we offer the frontline. The incredible work that social workers do day in day out, week in week out, year in year out, does not receive much recognition, and sadly it only reaches the Dispatch Box when there is a tragedy like that of Daniel Pelka or, now, that of young Arthur. I want to place it on record that social workers are not on their own, that they are not forgotten, and that they will always be supported. I hope that both the review I have announced today and the MacAlister review will mean we can continue our support for the frontline to ensure that we secure the best possible outcomes for the most vulnerable children and families in our country.

Diane Abbott: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Rosie Winterton: Is the point of order relevant to the statement and the exchanges that have just taken place?

Diane Abbott: I believe so, Madam Deputy Speaker.
In response to my question about resources, the Secretary of State for Education implied, certainly, that he would be willing to support any recommendations on finance made by the MacAlister review. However, the Secretary of State would have known perfectly well that his Department has signed a contract with MacAlister which says that he cannot “assume” any additional Government funding, that any recommendations about funding must be matched by savings elsewhere in Government over a period, and that any recommendations must be “affordable” to Government. How can the Secretary of State assure the House that he is willing to support recommendations of extra money when the contract that his Department has signed would seem to imply that any such recommendations would not be acceptable?

Rosie Winterton: I thank the right hon. Lady, but that is not actually a point of order for the Chair. Obviously, it has enabled her to put her point on record and to seek any clarification on the details of the Secretary of State’s reply to her, on which he may wish to give further information. I am sure that he has heard what she has said, and I know that if he feels he has anything further to add, he will do so.

Covid-19 Update

Sajid Javid: I would like to start by welcoming the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) to his new position and by wishing his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), all the very best in his new role. Throughout this national effort, I have always been grateful for how we have been able to work together across the Floor of the House in a constructive manner, and I look forward to that continuing.
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the pandemic. The omicron variant is continuing to spread, here and around the world. According to the latest data, there are now 261 confirmed cases in England, 71 in Scotland and four in Wales, bringing the total number of confirmed cases across the UK to 336. This includes cases with no links to international travel, so we can conclude that there is now community transmission across multiple regions of England. Beyond our shores, confirmed omicron cases have now been reported in 52 countries, with 11 countries including Romania, Mexico and Chile all reporting their first cases this weekend.
This is a global battle and we are playing a leading role. On Friday I spoke with the director general of the World Health Organisation to share our findings so far and discuss how we can work together to tackle this common threat. We are learning more about this new variant all the time. Recent analysis from the UK Health Security Agency suggests that the window between infection and infectiousness may be shorter for the omicron variant than for the delta variant, but we do not yet have a complete picture of whether omicron causes more severe disease or how it interacts with the vaccines, so we cannot say for certain at this point whether omicron has the potential to knock us off our road to recovery.
We are leaving nothing to chance. Our strategy is to buy ourselves time and strengthen our defences while our world-leading scientists assess this new variant and what it means for our fight against covid-19. Today, I would like to update the House on some of the latest measures that we are taking. First, we are taking balanced and proportionate measures at the border to slow the incursion of the new variant from abroad. We have seen with previous new variants how strong defences at the border, combined with the capacity we have built for genomic sequencing, can give us the best possible chance of identifying and responding to new variants. This includes our travel red list, which allows us to react quickly through targeted measures when the data shows cause for concern.
Analysis from UKHSA shows that at least 21 omicron cases in England alone are linked to travel from Nigeria, and there is a strong indication that omicron is present there. Nigeria also has very strong travel links with South Africa; it is the second most popular flight destination from Johannesburg. Based on this evidence, we made the decision to add Nigeria to the travel red list, and this came into force at 4 o’clock this morning. This means that anyone who is not a UK or Irish citizen or a UK resident and who has been in Nigeria for the past 10 days will be refused entry. Those who are must isolate in a Government-approved facility for 10 days,  where they will take two PCR tests. I know that there has been a spike in demand for these facilities due to the rapid expansion of the red list and that some people have experienced issues returning home. However, we are ramping up capacity as quickly as possible. We have already brought several new hotels on board in the past few days and we expect to double the number of rooms that are available this week.
When this new variant is appearing in more and more countries every day, we also need to look beyond the red list and strengthen our measures for a wider range of travellers to ensure they give us the protection we need against this potential threat. UKHSA’s finding that omicron may have a shorter window between infection and infectiousness means that pre-departure testing could have a greater role to play in identifying positive cases before travel. As a result of this new data and the greater spread of omicron across the globe, from 4 am tomorrow anyone travelling to the UK from countries that are not on the red list must also show proof of a negative PCR or lateral flow test. This applies to any traveller, whether they are vaccinated or unvaccinated, aged 12 and above. They should take a test as close as possible to their departure, but not earlier than 48 hours before.
Of course these measures will bring disruption, and they will impact on people’s plans to spend time with their loved ones, especially over the festive period, but we are taking this early action now so that we do not have to take tougher action later and so that we can take every opportunity to prevent more cases from arriving in our country.
I reinforce to hon. Members that these are temporary measures while we improve our understanding of this new variant. We will be reviewing the measures, along with the other temporary measures we have announced, and we will update the House next week. I firmly believe that whenever we put in place curbs on people’s freedoms, we must make sure they are absolutely necessary, and I assure the House that we will not keep these measures in place for a day longer than we have to.
Secondly, as well as acting to slow the incursion of the variant from abroad, we are also strengthening our vital defences here at home. Late last week we had the brilliant news that another new treatment has been approved by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency after it was found to have reduced hospitalisation and death in high-risk adults with symptomatic covid-19 by 79%.
Another defence, of course, is our vaccination programme. On Saturday we recorded almost 450,000 booster jabs in a single day, and yesterday we announced that we had hit the significant milestone of 20 million booster doses and third doses across the United Kingdom. In the past week the UK booster programme has reached more people than the adult population of Greater Manchester, and we are expanding this life-saving programme even further as part of our target of offering all adults in England a covid-19 booster jab by the end of January. To put this plan into action we will be recruiting 10,000 more paid vaccinators. We are also deploying about 350 military personnel in England this week to support the vaccine booster programme, and there are already more than 100 personnel deployed in Scotland to support their vaccination efforts.
We will have more than 1,500 pharmacy sites putting jabs into arms across England, along with new hospital hubs and new vaccination centres. We are bolstering our booster programme so that we can protect as many people as possible, strengthening our collective defences as the virus goes on the advance this winter.
One of the most dangerous aspects of covid-19 is how quickly it adapts. When the virus adapts, we must adapt, too. We cannot say for certain what omicron means for our response, but we can say that we are doing everything in our power to strengthen our national defences so we will be as prepared as possible for whatever this virus brings.
I commend this statement to the House.

Wes Streeting: I thank the Secretary of State both for his kind, warm words of welcome and for advance sight of his statement. I am looking forward to our exchanges.
Last week I paid tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), and I do so again today. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) and for Nottingham North (Alex Norris), who did a magnificent job in the shadow Health team.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South took a constructive approach to the Government’s response to the pandemic, and I intend to continue in the same vein. Covid-19 is still with us and, with new variants presenting significant challenges to our lives, livelihoods and liberties, the goal must be to ensure we can live with the virus through effective vaccines, treatments and common-sense public health measures. In that spirit, I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcements and join him in his call for everyone who is eligible to come forward to get the booster jab, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition did just this morning.
Vaccination remains the greatest tool we have in our fight against the pandemic. For the Government to achieve their overall target, they need to reach 500,000 booster vaccines a day. Labour called on the Government to set that target; I believe they have, and we support it. We desperately want the booster campaign to be successful, so can the Secretary of State today update us on when he expects to hit that target of half a million booster jabs a day? I also ask when boosters will be rolled out to under-40s, and I should probably declare my interest in that question as I do so.
On the wider vaccine roll-out, hon. Members across the House will have been frustrated and concerned at reports this weekend that too many hospital beds and resources are having to be diverted to those who have chosen not to receive the vaccine. With pressures on the NHS this winter expected to reach unprecedented levels even before the emergence of omicron, what is the Secretary of State’s plan to persuade the one in five people who are eligible but not yet fully vaccinated to get the jab?
The arguments in favour of receiving the vaccine are overwhelmingly strong. It is a safe and effective tool in our defence. What research has the Secretary of State undertaken into the reasons for vaccine hesitancy, and what steps is he taking to put in place effective reassurance  measures to encourage take-up, particularly among those groups that are less likely to have taken up the vaccine and are disproportionately suffering with the virus?
Can the Secretary of State update the House on the reasons for the slow progress in vaccinating 12 to 15-year-olds? The initial target of offering all 12 to 15-year-olds the vaccine by October half term has been missed, with current trends suggesting some teenagers will not receive the vaccine until February. What is his plan to speed that up? We want everyone to be able to enjoy Christmas this year, but to make that happen the Government need to bring forward those common-sense measures that can limit the spread of the new variant while having a minimal impact on our lives, jobs and businesses, especially in the busy pre-Christmas trading period.
I was pleased to see the Secretary of State and his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary accept Labour’s call for the reintroduction of pre-departure tests for those travelling to the UK but, given the likelihood of new variants, will the Government now introduce as a standard response to new variants overseas stronger border controls, testing and contact tracing, so that they are not again accused of locking the door after the horse has bolted? Can the Secretary of State explain why the window for pre-departure tests is 48 hours and not less? Can he act with his colleagues in Government to address the racket of soaring testing costs and poor provision of hotel quarantine accommodation?
A year ago, the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies recommended ventilation support for schools. The Government’s pilot of air purifiers in schools is not due to publish its full report until October next year. Meanwhile, a primary school in Paisley has today shut for a week following a suspected omicron outbreak. In the past two weeks, the number of students missing school has increased by 62%, meaning disruption to their learning and an impact on parents as they have to stay home with their children. Children have seen their education disrupted enough, so will the Secretary of State now roll out the ventilation support needed to protect our schools?
We have one of the lowest levels of sick pay in Europe. Workers in low-paid and insecure employment who contract covid are still being put in the impossible position of choosing between going to work and feeding their family on the one hand, and staying at home and protecting our public health on the other. Will the Government finally look again at increasing and expanding sick pay?
Finally—I am sorry to have to end on this note—I am sure the Secretary of State will agree that the effectiveness of the Government’s response to the pandemic and public compliance with the rules will depend on public confidence in those setting the rules. Residents in Ilford are this week being prosecuted for holding an indoor gathering of two or more people on 18 December 2020, and rightly so. Is it not time that the Government come clean about the event in Downing Street on that same day, admit they broke the rules and apologise? Or does the Secretary of State believe, as the Prime Minister appears to, that it is one rule for them and another rule for everyone else?

Sajid Javid: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for the measures that I talked of in my statement. I am pleased to hear that the Leader of the Opposition,  the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), had his booster jab today, as did, I think, the chief executive of the NHS, along with many thousands of other people.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his general support for the booster programme and the importance of vaccines and for the call he has made for more people to come forward. The booster programme is steaming ahead at blistering pace: 2.6 million people across the UK were boosted last week and some 3.6 million are already booked in to get their booster—that is probably the highest number we have seen for boosters. I am confident that we are on track to meet our commitment to offer all adults across the UK a booster jab by the end of January. We are already far ahead of any other country in Europe and most certainly still will be when we achieve that by the end of January.
The hon. Gentleman was right to point to the importance of vaccination more generally, especially in respect of those people who have not yet even taken up the offer of a first vaccine jab. We estimate that around 5 million people across the UK have yet to take up the offer of a jab. Our general vaccination rate across the population—more than 88% of those over the age of 12 have had at least one jab—is one of the highest in Europe, but we need to do even more to get to that missing 12%. A huge amount of work has gone into that effort, especially in respect of communications and dealing with misleading information on vaccines, as well as improving access. In the past week, perhaps because of the concerns about the omicron variant, we have seen more and more people coming forward for vaccinations for the first time. That is of course to be welcomed, and we will continue to build on that.
The hon. Gentleman asked about responses to any potential future variants. It is reasonable to think that there will be future variants, but we will reserve judgment on them until we come across such issues. In any case, there will always be a balanced and proportional response based on what we know at the time. I do not think it would make sense to set out that response in advance.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the cost of testing, whether using PCR or lateral flow tests. We have rightly removed more than 100 providers from the Government website in recent weeks, and some 20 were removed this weekend for showing misleading prices. We will continue to take a tough and hard line on that, because of course no one should be misled and the pricing and availability should be absolutely clear.
The hon. Gentleman asked about ventilation in schools. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education gave further information last week on that and the improvements being made.
On sick pay, it is important that we have rightly kept in place access from day one rather than returning to the situation before the pandemic.
In terms of rules, of course they should apply to everyone, regardless of who they are.

Jeremy Hunt: I strongly support the balanced and sensible way in which the Secretary of State is buying time until we find out how dangerous this new variant really is. How is he preparing the NHS for the potential worst-case scenario that we might face, particularly in respect of the 10,000 NHS  beds that NHS providers think are occupied by people waiting for a social care package? Given that in the first wave many people sadly died at home from stroke and heart attacks because they did not want to go into hospital, what are we doing for emergency care? Also, on cancer care, 45,000 fewer people started cancer treatment in the first wave, so how will the Secretary of State make sure that when we switch the NHS on for omicron we do not switch other services off?

Sajid Javid: I thank my right hon. Friend for his support—he is right to talk about the importance of buying time—and for his comments about the NHS and the need to prepare. I reassure him that ever since we discovered omicron the NHS has been spending a substantial amount of time preparing.
My right hon. Friend mentioned the importance of discharges; they were important before but, where a patient is ready to be clinically discharged, they have become even more important now in the light of omicron. The recent funding that we provided for discharges—almost £500 million over this winter period—will help.

Philippa Whitford: As the Secretary of State has highlighted, we do not know about omicron’s severity, but its mutations certainly suggest a risk of increased transmissibility and possible immune escape. However, it is expected that vaccines will still provide protection—including, hopefully, against serious disease—so I echo the Secretary of State’s call for people to get vaccinated if they have not already done so.
With S-gene dropout providing an early PCR marker for omicron, can the Secretary of State clarify what proportion of labs in the UK assess the S-gene, and particularly what proportion of all the private labs providing travel testing, which are obviously critical in our defence against seeding cases into the UK?
I welcome the logical reintroduction of a pre-travel PCR, but does the Secretary of State recognise that the average incubation of covid is still five days, and does he not agree with the call from the Scottish and Welsh Governments to have a day 8 test for release?
Will the Government now hold a four-nation Cobra meeting to discuss the response and also commit to providing support for the travel sector and any other businesses that might be impacted by public restrictions going forward?
The Secretary of State described this as a global battle, and he is right, but the establishment of omicron in the UK is a stark reminder of the failure of wealthy nations to take a global response, as they promised last spring. While almost 90% of adults in the UK are doubly vaccinated, fewer than 4% in low-income countries have received at least one dose and less than a quarter of their healthcare staff are protected. The UK Government promised to deliver 100 million doses by next summer, but have so far delivered fewer than 10 million and, shamefully, destroyed 600,000 doses in August. It is estimated that the UK will be left with almost 100 million excess doses, so will this Government not accelerate their donations to COVAX?
Finally, 130 countries support the principle of waiving intellectual property rights and technological transfer to mount a global response to this pandemic, so why are  the UK Government blocking the TRIPS waiver when most of these vaccines were developed with millions of pounds of public money?

Sajid Javid: First, let me thank the hon. Lady for her support for vaccination in general. Right across the UK, it is really making a difference, and I thank her for her comments on that, and especially on the importance of the booster programme.
On testing for this variant, she talked about the proxy measure, which is the S-gene dropout. There are other methods being deployed alongside that, which stop short of sequencing, but they take much longer, and the capability is not universal. Between these two proxy methods, the majority of testing centres can pick up the potential marker for omicron, but we are expanding that so that all testing centres will be able to do it very soon.
The hon. Lady talked about the restrictions. I point her to one of the important points that I made earlier, which is that the restrictions are temporary. As soon as they can be removed, we will remove them, and that is what industry and others want to see—as soon as we do not need them, we will remove them without any delay.
The UK can be proud of its commitment to vaccine donations to the developing world. We have a commitment of 100 million by June 2022. We have already delivered 22 million to COVAX and bilaterally. Another 9 million are on their way in the next couple of weeks, and we will meet our commitment.

Theresa May: The early indications of omicron are that it is more transmissible, but that it potentially leads to less serious illness than other variants. I understand that that would be the normal progress of a virus. Variants will continue to appear year after year. When will the Government accept that learning to live with covid, which we all have to do, means that we will most certainly have an annual vaccine and that we cannot respond to new variants by stopping and starting sectors of our economy, which leads to businesses going under and jobs being lost?

Sajid Javid: My right hon. Friend makes a very important set of points. She is right about what the early data suggests about transmissibility. We are certainly seeing that here in the UK, and we are also seeing it in the reports from our friends across the world.
On the severity of the variant, we should not jump to any conclusions. We just do not have enough data. Most of the data that is available at this point in time is coming from South Africa. That is where most of the world’s cases are, but it is important to remember that it has a younger population. South Africa also had the beta wave, and beta as a variant is much closer to the omicron variant. While it is quite possible that there will be a difference in clinical outcomes from infection, it is too early to jump to conclusions.
None the less, my right hon. Friend is right in her final point. Of course we must learn to live with this virus; it is not going away, as she says, for many, many years, and perhaps it will lead to annual vaccinations. We have to find ways to continue with life as normal.

Rosie Winterton: Order. Colleagues will be aware that there is a further statement and quite a lot of business to get through this evening. If I am to get everybody in, I will be looking for brief questions and brief answers.

Clive Betts: I refer the Secretary of State to the issue of third doses. I welcome the Government’s policy of giving people with compromised immune systems a third dose, and I declare my own interest in that. I ask him, though, why is there so much confusion around who is responsible for advising people with an entitlement to a third dose. There is a lot of confusion between secondary and primary care providers. Secondly, why is it not possible to go online to book an appointment for a third dose as it is to book one for a first, second or booster dose?

Sajid Javid: The reason it is not possible to go online to book a third dose is that, often, the GP will need to make a judgment on the particular individual. A lot of cases are different, and often it depends on the reason why that individual is immunosuppressed. It could be for a temporary reason. It could be a long-term issue. It also depends a lot on whether that individual has had any other recent infection. It is a clinical decision. It is right that it is made by a GP, but as soon as that decision is made by the responsible clinician, that person should of course get their third dose as soon as possible.

Liam Fox: Many of us have constituents who were caught out when South Africa was added to the red list and are now in compulsory hotel quarantine. Given the information that my right hon. Friend gave us today, if someone has had a negative PCR before travel and a negative day 2 PCR, what is the medical rationale for retaining 10-day quarantines? Is it possible to find ways of having safe early release, so we are not using up the capacity that we have unnecessarily?

Sajid Javid: The medical rationale is around the incubation period of the virus. Most of the data that we have today is based on previous variants that we have had time to assess. With this particular variant, as my right hon. Friend will know, there has not been enough time so far, but as we learn more, we will change our policies should we need to do so.

Vicky Foxcroft: Last week, I asked the Vaccines Minister whether the Government would allow immunocompromised people the opportunity to have antibody tests. She helpfully said that she would look into it. Has the Secretary of State discussed that with her, and what are his thoughts on antibody testing for those who do not yet know whether the vaccines work on them?

Sajid Javid: I believe that, in certain conditions, immunocompromised people can have antibody tests. It is a decision made by their clinicians. I think the hon. Lady is asking whether they can be made available more generally. We are taking expert advice on that. I want to reassure her, on more support for the immunosuppressed, that some of recent treatments that we have recently purchased and that are being authorised by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency will also provide a much higher degree of support.

Theresa Villiers: The travel sector has been devastated by two years of covid emergency. It will have met with despair new, expensive testing requirements and a collapse in confidence among people who would otherwise be booking their holidays. What  will we do to help the travel sector, and when will we get to a stage where we deal with covid without having to damage such significantly important parts of our economy?

Sajid Javid: My right hon. Friend is right to talk about the particularly acute challenge facing the travel sector. It has been hit hard not just by the measures that have been taken here at home but by the international measures that have been taken by so many countries, so it is not just about the UK-based decisions. The answer really lies in making a quick decision about omicron. She will know, as I have said, that we will update the House and hopefully have much more data on the variant by next week. Hopefully, if that data is helpful, then pressures can be eased in the travel sector. Should it be less helpful for the travel sector, the Government will have time to review what other measures they might be able to take to help.

Hilary Benn: Current Government guidance in England is that if someone has tested positive for covid, they should not have another PCR or lateral flow test for 90 days, yet the guidance for those wishing to return to the UK is that if they have recently recovered from covid and are no longer infectious, they should have a lateral flow test—apparently because it is less likely to return a positive result. This appears to be contradictory advice, so will the Secretary of State tell the House what advice he can give to UK citizens who have caught and recovered from covid abroad regarding how they can best return to the UK in time for Christmas?

Sajid Javid: UK citizens who are abroad and wish to return home should comply with the requirements, but the right hon. Gentleman has raised an important issue, which I will take away and look into further.

Mark Harper: Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that you will find it as comforting as I did that the Prime Minister’s official spokesman this morning confirmed that the Government were confident that next week they would have more data than they currently do, and that the Government would update Parliament before the House rises for Christmas; that is very welcome. The Prime Minister’s official spokesman also reserved the right to implement measures, if necessary, during the recess. It is perfectly reasonable that the Government retain that power, but if restrictions are important enough to implement during the recess, the House should be recalled for us to debate and vote on those matters. May I have an assurance from the Secretary of State that that is what will happen?

Sajid Javid: My right hon. Friend should be assured that there will be a further update next week, as I have also just committed to. As he says, if—and it is a big if—it were necessary for the Government to take important action during the recess, of course people would expect us to take that action. As for whether Parliament should or should not be recalled, that is something that I will take back to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Angela Eagle: Will the Health Secretary confirm that he expects next week’s update to contain much more information about the threat that the omicron variant poses in terms of seriousness of illness, so that we can have some insight into that issue,  and will he tell us if he does not expect that to be the case? Will he also comment on the fact that more than 25% of Government Members who are in the Chamber today are not wearing masks? What does that do for the compliance of people outside who are meant to wear masks on public transport and in shops?

Sajid Javid: As each day goes by, we are getting a little bit more information, but I do think that by next week we will have more information, given the samples that have arrived at Porton Down and other labs across the world. However, I will caveat that by saying that I cannot give any guarantee about how much information we will have; I am sure that there will still be many unanswered questions at that point. As for masks, our rules are clear.

Harriett Baldwin: I welcome the emphasis that the Secretary of State has put on vaccinations and boosters—not on locking down the economy—in his statement today. As a fellow Worcestershire MP, I wonder whether he is aware that in very rural parts of Worcestershire—for example, Tenbury Wells in west Worcestershire—it is on occasion a long way to travel to get a booster jab, and that home visits for people who have care at home can also be difficult to access. Will he suggest to the system that we put more emphasis on the rural delivery of booster jabs?

Sajid Javid: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend the reassurance that we are massively expanding the availability of vaccines. That process has already begun in the last week or so, with more pharmacies coming on board—many in rural areas and in the heart of communities—as well as more hospital hubs and vaccination centres. We are recruiting some 10,000 paid vaccinators to help us to do just that.

David Linden: Although it will still take another couple of weeks fully to understand the impact of the omicron variant, we do know that this strain of covid-19 is considerably more transmissible. As a result, I am sure that it is reasonable to expect more people to be pinged or asked to self-isolate. In the light of that, will the Government bring forward urgent reforms to increase and extend statutory sick pay so that workers are not forced into poverty as well as self-isolation?

Sajid Javid: To support people who may have the challenges to which the hon. Gentleman referred, sick pay will begin on day one. We also have the hardship fund, which can help with particular cases.

Graham Brady: The travel sector has been devastated by uncertainty and constantly changing rules. I welcome the Secretary of State’s saying that that these measures are temporary, but will he set out in detail the criteria on which he will decide whether they should be lifted and when?

Sajid Javid: I fully understand my right hon. Friend’s point about the impact on the travel sector; that should not be lost on anyone. We all understand why the action has been taken, but we must not forget that the sector is hugely important to the economy, and that it has been  hit hard again and again. Next week’s update—the  review point—will be important to provide more certainty.  As I said to the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), we cannot guarantee that we will have all the answers to our questions, but that information will certainly help to provide more certainty.

Barbara Keeley: I have a constituent whose mother has been fast-tracked for end-of-life nursing care in a local care home. However, my constituent was told that she would not be able to visit her mother at Christmas, despite this being her last Christmas. The reason that the care home gave for suspending visits on Christmas day was to make it easier for the staff, because the covid
“testing would be too time consuming”.
That flies in the face of Government guidance, which says:
“Visits at the end of life should always be supported…in the final months and weeks of life…not just the final days or hours”.
Will the Secretary of State issue guidance to care homes, emphasising the importance of visits at Christmas, particularly for people at end of life?

Sajid Javid: Yes, I most certainly would like to help with that. I am sorry to hear about the hon. Lady’s constituent. As she says, visits at end of life should always be made available; there should be no excuses. I would be happy to look into the case that she has mentioned, if she provides me with more details. I will also check the general guidance.

John Redwood: Why has some of the substantial extra money for the health service not been used to expand bed and associated staff capacity in hospitals, and why were the anti-covid Nightingale hospitals not used for the pandemic to prevent the virus from spreading to the district generals?

Sajid Javid: The NHS and social care has £5.4 billion of extra funding over the second half of this financial year. A lot of that funding is being deployed to create extra capacity, especially with work on discharges between the NHS and the social care sector, because people can be clinically ready to be discharged, but the care packages have not always been easily available.

Desmond Swayne: How many of those who have tested positive in the UK are ill?

Sajid Javid: The number of confirmed cases in the UK is 336. By definition, they are all infected. Some may be asymptomatic and others will be feeling ill. As far as I am aware, none of them has so far been hospitalised.

Tony Lloyd: The Secretary of State will know that early detection and isolation is fundamental for the new omicron strain, but does he realise that Rochdale, for example, was receiving some hundreds of PCR tests until August and that this has now been ceased? Some of the national testing centres in my constituency are also being downgraded. Will he look at this matter, because it is clearly taking us in the wrong direction?

Sajid Javid: I believe that the UKHSA is carrying out some half a million tests, approximately, a day. In the light of some of the concerns around the omicron variant, with the need for greater testing, that testing capacity is being increased.

Kate Osamor: The Nigerian high commissioner to London has called the inclusion on the red list of African countries, especially Nigeria, nothing short of “travel apartheid”. Omicron is classified as a mild variant, with no deaths and no hospitalisation, unlike the delta variant, so when will the European countries that have the delta variant be added to the red list? It is time for an international approach and not a discriminatory approach.

Sajid Javid: The only way our approach discriminates is in terms of the risk of the virus. The hon. Lady will know from the information that I have shared today and the Government have shared previously that the epicentre of this variant is southern Africa at the moment. The reason Nigeria has been included is that at least 21 cases in England are clearly linked to Nigeria, but we have also taken into account further reports such as Ghana having reported 25 cases linked to Nigeria. She will also understand that some countries do not have the same ability to test or sequence, and so we, with other countries, provide them with that support. It is right that whenever we have the data, we must act to protect British public health.

Steve Brine: As of last week, as feared, my constituency—like many others, I am sure—is seeing Christmas events cancelled and moved online, including all manner of festive performances in schools. Local authority guidance is often what is cited. Given that last week national Government went out of their way to ask schools to go ahead with Christmas performances such as nativity plays, I am keen to understand who head teachers and other event organisers should follow—the town hall or this place.

Rosie Winterton: Can I once again urge the need for brevity if we want to get everybody in?

Sajid Javid: I would encourage everyone to look seriously at the national Government guidance. Our guidance is clear. Even before the emergence of the new variant, we all knew that covid-19 likes the colder, darker days that winter brings. There is plenty of guidance. I would encourage people to go ahead whether with nativity plays or Christmas parties, but to continue to follow the guidance that was always there.

Grahame Morris: Recent, quite staggering, figures from the respected charity Macmillan Cancer Support show that nearly 50,000 people in the UK are still missing a cancer diagnosis compared with the pre-pandemic period. I know the Secretary of State is new to his post, but there is a whole weight of evidence, including petitions and letters from MPs. Will he commit to address the severe capacity pressures within cancer services in the imminent elective recovery plan?

Sajid Javid: Yes.

Suzanne Webb: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best Christmas present anyone can get this year is to go and get their booster jab?

Sajid Javid: Yes and yes.

Rushanara Ali: Will the Health Secretary update the House on whether we should expect an economic support package not just for the aviation sector but for tourism and other sectors that might be affected if further restrictions apply? Will he also say more about how we can ensure that provision of the covid vaccine, which is a global public good, can be accelerated so that countries that are at risk get the support they need? If we had acted faster, earlier, this particular variant might have been prevented. We need much more international leadership, led by our Government.

Sajid Javid: On vaccine donations, I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave to a similar question. In terms of transport, I also refer her to an answer I gave previously.

Robert Syms: My constituents Mike and Carol Parkin are paying £2,700 for the privilege of being imprisoned in a Delta hotel in Milton Keynes and my constituent David Brayshaw £3,700 for being in a 3-star hotel in downtown Hounslow. The highlight of the day is meals in boxes, with plastic cutlery, that are inedible, cold or both. Can we go back to a proper quarantine where people can go home? What they are getting is very poor value indeed.

Sajid Javid: I think my hon. Friend will understand the difference in terms of public health between a managed quarantine facility and home quarantine, but he is right to point to an important issue. Of course no one is going to enjoy being quarantined in this way—why would anyone? I think everyone understands the issues, but it is really important that the quality of care provided there is equally decent and of good quality. If my hon. Friend can share with me some of the information he has about his constituents, I would like to look into that.

Lisa Cameron: As chair of the all-party disability group, I have been hearing from people right across the United Kingdom saying that some of the individuals who have not yet been vaccinated have learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorders. They have a fear of going to large-scale vaccination centres but do not yet have adapted vaccination regimes with specialist learning disabilities nurses who can attend to them. Could the Secretary of State assure the House that this will be taken forward and that the most clinically vulnerable will not be left behind?

Sajid Javid: It is important that there is easy access for everyone to get vaccinated. The hon. Lady has given a really good demonstration of why that is so critical for every part of our community. If it is helpful, the Vaccines Minister will be pleased to meet her, as chair of the APPG, to see what more we can do.

Andrew Murrison: Vaccines are clearly our way out of this, but does the Secretary of State agree that treatments are also important, and they have come on in leaps and bounds? Sotrovimab reduces the incidence of death or hospitalisation by 80% and molnupiravir got its approval last week. Does he agree that while we are very good at R&D we are less  good at rolling out these extraordinary therapeutics? Will he do everything in his power to make sure that the NHS has access to those drugs as soon as possible since they reduce considerably the problem that covid and its associates will pose in terms of mortality and serious illness?

Sajid Javid: Yes. I know my right hon. Friend speaks with experience and I agree with him absolutely.

Clive Efford: If we are going to have to live with covid and given the high infection rates among young children, what possible justification can there be for delaying funding to schools to improve ventilation to reduce transmission?

Sajid Javid: I believe that my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary said something about the importance of ventilation last week.

Holly Mumby-Croft: Many, many of my constituents in Scunthorpe have come forward and had their jabs and boosters, and I hope my right hon. Friend will thank them, as I do. But I still speak to a very small number of particularly younger people who are sincerely worried about having the vaccine. What can he do to reassure them that it is safe and effective and that they should come forward and take the opportunity to have theirs?

Sajid Javid: It is important that we do whatever we can through using the right communication channels. It is also important that we provide the easiest access possible. For example, some of the mobile vaccination units have had a disproportionately high success rate with younger people.

Jonathan Edwards: Luckily, the omicron variant was picked up quite quickly in South Africa due to its genome sequencing capability; otherwise we could be in a worse position. What are the British Government doing to support international efforts to enhance genome sequencing capability across the world so that the next variant of concern is identified as quickly as possible, wherever it comes?

Sajid Javid: I think we can say that we are leading the way on this. The UK Health Security Agency has established a database that is open for all countries to access to post their data. Even the discovery of the omicron variant and its potential risks was done here in the UK.

Chris Grayling: I echo concerns about the travel and aviation sectors. This is a real blow for them. The Secretary of State will remember that back in June or July he took a decision to remove restrictions, in the face of heavy scientific advice that he needed to carry on with restrictions. That decision was the right one. Will he give an undertaking that this time round he will also face down the more conservative elements of the scientific community, do the right thing and keep the restrictions as minimal as possible?

Sajid Javid: Yes, I am happy to give that commitment to my right hon. Friend, for all the excellent reasons he gives. We were absolutely right, back at the start of the summer, to open up our country, including removing  travel restrictions. That is one of the reasons, with regard to the dominant delta variant, why the UK is in a much better position than many other European countries today.

Rachael Maskell: When it comes to public health compliance, consistency and clarity of message is important. The variant does not understand the difference between an indoor setting on transport or another indoor sitting, so why can the Secretary of State not ensure that all indoor sittings have the same rules applied to them?

Sajid Javid: I believe that the response we have had is balanced and proportionate.

Andrew Bridgen: My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who is no longer in her place, has already confirmed and reminded the House that the normal evolution of a virus is to increase in transmissibility, but reduce in pathogenicity over time. The Secretary of State has already informed the House that none of the 336 cases of omicron confirmed in the UK has yet resulted in hospitalisation. Does he agree that that is tremendously good news and that we should look forward next week to hopefully having all restrictions lifted?

Sajid Javid: Let us see what next week brings.

Martyn Day: Several of my constituents have met difficulties in booking hotel quarantine for their return from South Africa due to problems with Corporate Travel Management being unable to verify certain card payments or with getting bookings, despite the website showing availability. As a result, they have missed flights and had to book others in their stead, which have had to be paid for. Will the Minister therefore commit to reimbursing such constituents for the failures of the system?

Sajid Javid: I am not aware of the details of the individual cases that the hon. Gentleman mentions, but a variety of credit cards and payment systems can be used. If he believes there has been a failure of the system, I would be happy to take a closer look at that.

Christopher Chope: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House what he is doing to promote the availability of the vaccine damage payment scheme, and does he recognise that that could be a good counter against vaccine hesitancy? When, however, will the scheme be made fit for purpose?

Sajid Javid: We are reviewing that scheme, for reasons that my hon. Friend has brought up in the past in the House. I agree that it is important to have confidence in vaccines, and that scheme has a role to play.

Emma Lewell-Buck: Throughout this pandemic, while we have all made sacrifices, we have been watching those imposing the rules repeatedly breaking them. The final straw is that last Christmas, as families spent time apart and their loved ones died alone, No. 10 was in full party mode. Will the Secretary of State therefore confirm that the upcoming covid inquiry will include a thorough examination of any misconduct in public office?

Sajid Javid: The rules apply equally to everyone.

Paul Maynard: For what reason is the Department of Health and Social Care making an announcement on extensions to the red list, rather than the Department for Transport, as has been the case previously?

Sajid Javid: Departments across Government work together on the pandemic, and that means that my Department works very closely with the Department for Transport.

Karl Turner: Not all, but most Members of this House and the general public would support the Secretary of State when he says that he has to impose further curbs on people’s freedoms, but does he not accept that people would perhaps be a bit more enthusiastic if when he comes back to the Dispatch Box, he fesses up, accepts that there was a knees-up in No. 10 last year when people were dying without family members there present with them, and apologises on behalf of the Prime Minister?

Sajid Javid: I thought it was going to be a serious question.

Philip Hollobone: I have a constituent who is stuck in South Africa and due to come back on Thursday. He has been given a medical exemption from hotel quarantine, so he has to have managed quarantine at home for 10 days, but there is a problem with Corporate Travel Management, because it will not let him book his PCR test for day two and day eight unless he also books a hotel quarantine package. Will the Secretary of State help to unblock the problem with Corporate Travel Management?

Sajid Javid: Yes, there are in certain cases, as my hon. Friend points out, medical exemptions to the hotel quarantine system. The problem that he points out should not be happening, so I will be happy to look at that case with some urgency.

Jack Brereton: I very much welcome the measures taken to accelerate the booster programme. Will my right hon. Friend look at what more can be done to support our excellent vaccinators and volunteers in Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire to fully roll out as quickly as possible the increased capacity of vaccinations that we need to see?

Sajid Javid: Yes, there has been an excellent roll-out of the vaccine throughout Staffordshire. Alongside the rest of the UK, there is going to be a real step-up in the number of vaccination access points available.

Richard Drax: Different variants will keep coming at us in the years ahead. In that regard, I heard a very eminent physician on Radio 4 saying that  one area of concern was our reaction to the new variants. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House and the country that we are absolutely on the ball when it comes to a new variant appearing and are ready to do all that is needed to keep us safe and safeguard our liberties?

Sajid Javid: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. When it comes to genome sequencing, which is crucial to identifying new variants and any of the risks they may or may not bring, the UK is second only to the United States in our capability.

Laura Trott: Many of my constituents have been in touch to express concern that they cannot register the vaccination status of 12 to 15-year-olds on the NHS app. Can my right hon. Friend provide an update on when they will be able to do that?

Sajid Javid: Yes. That facility may not be in the app—it may be through a letter or a process—but it will still provide what is needed in terms of travel for that age group. That hopefully will start next week.

Craig Mackinlay: I fully understand that my right hon. Friend is treading water until we know more about the omicron variant, its response to the vaccines and its virulence, but can I press him on the nature of any likely Government response if those answers are poor? We know what lockdowns mean: damage to youngsters, damage to businesses, damage to lives and damage to liberties—not least the £400 billion while we waited for the vaccine and got it rolled out over a seven-month cycle. Can he please assure me that under no circumstance will we do the same all over again and hope for a different outcome? He knows as well as I that there will be yet another variant some time down the line.

Sajid Javid: I do not want to pre-judge the review, but I know that my hon. Friend would agree that our best form of defence is our vaccine programme, and the fact that we are doing better than any other country in Europe in our booster programme gives us a really strong level of defence.

David Johnston: Over 90% of the people getting the most serious care for covid are unvaccinated. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if people are not getting a vaccine without good reason, they do not just endanger themselves, but put a strain on the NHS that it does not need when trying to treat people for other conditions?

Sajid Javid: I agree with my hon. Friend. Taking a vaccine should be a positive decision. With the exception of NHS settings or social care settings, no one should be forced to take a vaccine, but people who have not yet taken a vaccine should know, as my hon. Friend said, that they are not only endangering themselves, but wider society. That hospital place that they might take perhaps would have been taken by someone else with a different illness. I urge them to please think of others.

Ten-Year Drugs Strategy

Kit Malthouse: With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Government’s new 10-year strategy for addressing illicit drug use, which has been published today.
Illegal drugs inflict devastation on a horrifying scale. The impact on individuals, families and neighbourhoods is profound. The cost to society is colossal—running to nearly £20 billion a year in England alone—but the greatest tragedy is the human cost. Drugs drive nearly half of all homicides, and a similar proportion of crimes such as robbery, burglary and theft. More people die every year as a result of illegal drug use than from all knife crime and road traffic accidents combined. The county lines drug dealing model fuels violence and exploitation. The need for action could not be clearer. Today, we are setting out how we will turn that around. Our new strategy “From harm to hope” is a blueprint for driving drugs out of our cities, towns and villages, and for ensuring that those affected get the help that they so badly need.
In February 2019, the Government commissioned Professor Dame Carol Black to conduct an independent review of the issues and challenges relating to drug misuse. In July, Dame Carol published the second part of her review. Both parts together formed a call to action. We accept all Dame Carol’s key recommendations, and this strategy sets out our response in full.
The task of gripping the issue cannot be undertaken by any one Department alone. A collective effort is required, which is why we have developed a whole-system approach, with a focus on three strategic priorities: first, breaking drug supply chains; secondly, delivering a world-class treatment and recovery system; and thirdly, achieving a significant reduction in demand for illegal drugs over the next generation. It is a truly whole-of-Government effort that takes in contributions from a number of my ministerial colleagues. I thank Dame Carol Black for her thorough reviews and championing of this important agenda.
I am pleased to tell the House that our strategy is accompanied by nearly £900 million of dedicated funding. That record level of investment will bring our total spending on drug enforcement, treatment and recovery to more than £3 billion over the next three years. That is unprecedented and a clear signal of our commitment, and that of the Prime Minister, to addressing the challenges.
Using that funding, we will mount a relentless and uncompromising campaign against the violent and exploitative illegal drug market. That will include: further action to prevent drugs from entering the country; the disruption of criminal gangs responsible for drug trafficking and supply; a zero-tolerance approach to drugs in prisons; and a continued focus on rolling up county lines, building on the success of our efforts to date.
The county lines phenomenon is one of the most pernicious forms of criminality to emerge in recent years, which is why we ramped up activity to dismantle the business model behind that threat. Since that programme was launched just over two years ago, we have seen the closure of more than 1,500 county lines, with over 7,400 arrests. Importantly, more than 4,000 vulnerable,  often young, people have been rescued and safeguarded. Those results speak for themselves, but we will not stop there. By investing £300 million in throttling the drugs supply chain over the next three years, we will take a significant stride towards delivering the objectives of our beating crime plan and levelling-up agenda.
Tough enforcement action must be coupled with a renewed focus on breaking the cycle of drug addiction, which is why we are investing an additional £780 million in creating a world-class treatment and recovery system. That is the largest ever single increase in treatment and recovery investment, and the public will expect to see results—and so do we.
The strategy sets out how the whole-of-Government mission aims to significantly increase the numbers of drug and alcohol treatment places, and people in long-term recovery from substance addiction, to reverse the upward trend in drug-related deaths, and to bolster the crime prevention effort by reducing levels of offending associated with drug dependency. To achieve that, we are setting out a clear stance today that addiction is a chronic condition and that when someone has been drawn into drug dependency, they should be supported to recover. Of the £780 million, £530 million will be spent on enhancing drug treatment services, while £120 million will be used to increase the number of offenders and ex-offenders who are engaged in the treatment that they need to turn their lives around.
Treatment services are just one part of the support that people need to sustain a meaningful recovery, so we are investing a further £68 million for treatment and additional support for people with a housing need and £29 million for specialised employment support for people who have experienced drug addiction. That enhanced spending on drug treatment and recovery will also help to drive down crime by cutting levels of drug-related offending.
The harms caused by drug misuse are not distributed evenly across the country. Although our strategy is designed to deliver for the country as a whole, it is right that we target our investment so that the areas with the highest levels of drug use and drug-related deaths and crime are prioritised. That will be a key step in levelling up such areas and supporting them to prosper.
Local partners working together on our long-term ambitions will be key to the strategy’s success and we will develop a new set of local and national measures of progress against our key strategic aims, with clear accountability at national and local levels. We will also continue to work closely with our partners in the devolved Administrations to embed collaboration, share good practice and strengthen our evidence base in this UK-wide challenge.
The new strategy sets out our immediate priorities while also highlighting our longer-term goals. We want to see a generational shift in our society’s attitude towards drugs, which means reducing the demand for illegal drugs and being utterly unequivocal about the swift and certain consequences that individuals will face if they choose to take drugs as part of their lifestyle. We will improve our methods for identifying those drugs users and roll out a system of tougher penalties that they must face.
Unlawful possession of drugs is a crime and we need to be clear that those who break the law should face consequences for their actions. That is why our commitment  includes going even further in this mission with a White Paper next year to ensure that the penalties for recreational use are tougher and have a clear and increasing impact. Those penalties must be meaningful for the individual, which is why we are considering options such as increased powers to fine individuals, requirements to attend drug awareness courses, and other reporting requirements and restrictions on their movement, including—possibly—the confiscation of passports and driving licences.
Alongside that, our strategy commits to research, innovation and building a world-leading evidence base to achieve a once-in-a-generation shift in attitudes and behaviours. A new £5-million cross-Government innovation fund and a new research fund will start that decade-long journey. That will include a review by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs on how best to prevent vulnerable people from falling into drug use. A national drugs summit will be also held in spring next year to bring together experts, educators, businesses, law enforcement and Government to discuss the issue.
Preventing drug use is always a better route than dealing with the consequences of harms. The strategy also sets out our commitment to evaluating mandatory relationships, sex and health education in schools, and to supporting young people and families most at risk of substance misuse. The new strategy marks the start of a journey and we will publish annual reports to track progress against the ambitions contained in it.
Illegal drugs are the cause of untold misery across our society. The Government will not stand by while lives are being destroyed. This is about reducing crime, levelling up our country and, fundamentally, saving lives. Our new strategy sets out how we will turn the tide on drug misuse, and I commend this statement to the House.

Sarah Jones: I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. Over the last 20 years, we have seen a stark pattern of class A drug use. Between 1996 and 2011, the use of class A drugs was on a downward trend year on year. Since 2011, the use of class A drugs has increased every year. Drug deaths are at an all-time high and we have seen the emergence of increasingly violent and exploitative gangs that use technology that is way ahead of the Government to groom kids and sell them drugs.
The question Dame Carol Black answered in her review on drugs was why that has happened, and her conclusions were damning. We have gone backwards over the last 10 years, with drug abuse up and drug treatment down. She said that
“drug misuse is at tragically destructive levels in this country…Funding cuts have left treatment and recovery services on their knees. Commissioning has been fragmented, with little accountability …partnerships…have deteriorated. The workforce is depleted…and demoralised.”
I could go on.
There has never been a greater need for a 10-year plan to try to undo the 10 years of damage caused by Conservative Governments. In his statement, the Minister talked of ambitious plans, but what is missing is any recognition that the policies followed by Conservative  Governments over the last 11 years have caused such damage. The truth is that the Government have dropped the ball on drugs and on crime.
I have been going round the country over the last few weeks and I have seen the damage that has been done. Communities of good people with hopes and dreams have been invaded by serious organised crime that trashes our streets and preys on our young by offering false hope of money and a future. There are two-for-one deals on Insta: “Introduce a friend and get your drugs half price. You help us, we’ll help you.” Thousands of children at risk of abuse are taking a punt on their futures at the hands of thugs, and whole communities are having to deal with antisocial behaviour and the crime that follows drug addiction. This is Tory Britain.
I will not join the Prime Minister’s fanfare about the biggest investment in a generation, because this Government have overseen the biggest failures of a generation; and I mourn the loss of life. Instead, today I hope that the Government mean what they say, and want to welcome the strategy—at last—and ask some questions of the Minister.
I welcome the funding, the commitment to 54,000 new treatment places, the closure of the 2,000 lines we hope to close and the ambition to save 1,000 lives, but will neighbourhood policing be brought back to the levels we saw in 2010—so crucial for catching those who sell drugs in our communities—because we know that only 400 of the first tranche of 6,000 officers are in frontline roles? Will the 50% of police community support officers we have lost be replaced?
Can the Minister explain why he is not funding treatment to the level that Dame Carol Black has called for? We count a shortfall of over £200 million. Will the Minister look at the new offence of child criminal exploitation, accept Labour’s suggestion of putting modern slavery offenders on a register similar to the sex offenders register, and look again at all the amendments we have tabled to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill to impose longer sentences for adults who involve children in criminal enterprise?
While this Government have dithered on drugs, those selling and producing them have been working hard. They have new, exploitative ways of pushing their products around the country, and they have chilling ways of advertising them online to our children. A shocking 58% of 18-year-olds reported seeing drugs being sold online, often via Instagram and Snapchat.
Can the Minister confirm that the statistic that the Government have shut down over 1,500 deal lines actually means they have taken or shut down an individual phone or phone number, not that they have necessarily caught the groomers and the exploiters? Most criminal gangs will keep copies of their customer list that can be sold for thousands of pounds. I have heard the police talk about using an order to force a communications provider to disconnect a device or phone number, and the line was back up in an hour. How many actual networks have been shut down?
What is the Minister doing to recruit more analysts? What is he doing to work with social media companies, which should not allow the sale of drugs on their networks, to get ahead of the criminals online? How are the telecommunication companies involved in his plan?
Finally, prosecutions for drug offences are down 36% since 2010 and convictions down 43%. This is alongside an overall drop in prosecutions since 2010—down  40%. Why has this happened, and what is the Minister doing about that? All around this country, people know what impact drugs are having on our communities and they want something done about it. This statement and this drugs plan, however the Minister presents them, are not about levelling up; they are compensation for cuts over the last decade, for lives lost and for communities that have had to bear the brunt of the Government’s complacency on drugs.

Kit Malthouse: I am afraid that, while I obviously welcome some of the hon. Lady’s pleasure at what we are doing in the plan and I recognise, as she does, the need for some action, these exchanges between us have a slightly tiresome pattern, if I may say so, which is that I announce some new initiative and the hon. Lady starts talking about the events of 12 years ago, somehow implying that we are not really doing anything at all. Even if I accepted her premise about the pattern over the last 10 years—which, for the record, I do not—it would be refreshing, would it not, if she and her party were willing to accept some culpability for the financial situation that we inherited well over a decade ago. Somebody had to sort out the finances of this country, as we had to in 1979 as well, and if we had not done that and sorted out the money side of it then, I hesitate to imagine what financial situation we would be in now.
While the hon. Lady points to the pattern of consumption, she strangely seems to forget that drug consumption now is well below the level it was in many of the years of the previous Labour Government. In fact, consumption of class A did not really start to turn in this country till about 2014, not 2011, as she pointed out. That was because the industry, as it were, or the business of drug distribution reacted as any business would: it found different products and new ways to distribute, made products cheaper and stronger, and started to exploit people in a way we had not seen before.
We commissioned Dame Carol Black to do this study. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, who has just left the Chamber, commissioned it when he was the Home Secretary, because we recognised the alarm being caused in neighbourhoods, towns, cities and villages across the country, and we wanted to do something about it. That plan has now resulted in our strategy that we are publishing today, and we firmly believe it will make a big difference over the next decade.
The hon. Lady should not imagine—and I slightly take umbrage at her accusation—that we have sat on our hands more recently. As you will know, Mr Deputy Speaker, over the last two years that I have been in this job, I have dedicated myself to the Prime Minister’s command that we should roll up county lines. We have closed 1,500 deal lines, which has resulted in 7,400 arrests and, importantly, over 4,000 young people have been rescued from the clutches of those gangs. [Interruption.] I hope she, and her colleagues muttering at me, will welcome those results and, frankly, congratulate the police on manufacturing a modus operandi of dealing with these gangs that is often dismantling them permanently.
The three big exporting forces of London, West Midlands and Merseyside have seen significant investment by the Government over the last two years to deal with this problem, and as a result, we have seen big falls. If we look at a county like Norfolk, only 18 months ago it  had well over 100 county lines, and the number of county lines in that county can be counted on the fingers of two hands. There have been great results across the country, and I am disappointed that the hon. Lady has not recognised that. So the idea that somehow there was some dithering on drugs is completely unfair. We have closed down a large number of deal lines, but there is still a long way to go. We think we are down to about 600 active lines now across the country, and that over the next two years, with the investment we have put in place, we will be able to drive them down even further.
The hon. Lady did ask an interesting question about the role of telecommunications companies and the use of technology. One of the things we have learned over the last two or three years is that these businesses, as it were, of distributing drugs are uniquely vulnerable because of their use of telecoms to distribute, market and communicate with their customers. We will be talking to telecommunications companies about how they can help us.
On the hon. Lady’s final accusation that this is not about levelling up, we know that the impact of drugs has been disproportionate across the country. The north-east, for example, suffers much more than any other part of England. Again, Blackpool, where we have put a Project ADDER and where we are doing significant work, has the highest number of drug deaths in England. There is a disproportionality out there, and we are determined to address it. We will start our work in those kinds of areas, and that will be a key part of our levelling-up agenda in the years to come.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nigel Evans: Order. If everybody could resume their seats. As you can see, there is a lot of interest in this. We still have three other bits of business following this so, please, no statements—just ask questions, so I can get in as many people as I possibly can.

Robert Buckland: May I commend my right hon. Friend on his statement and on the drugs strategy that he and I worked on together? In particular, I commend Dame Carol Black’s recommendations 17 to 19 relating to the Ministry of Justice—on the treatment of prisoners in custody, arrangements for release and, indeed, the issue of a co-ordinator role in the probation service to join up those vital support services. Will he make sure that those provisions in particular are carried out as soon as possible?

Kit Malthouse: My right hon. and learned Friend was pivotal in the development and thinking around the plan, particularly from a Ministry of Justice point of view, and I am very grateful that he was, given his wide experience. He is quite right that while we can put in place high-quality treatment, it needs to be consistent across the country, particularly for those leaving the secure estate, but it also needs to be part of a jigsaw of recovery that includes housing and employment. The argument he used to make is that for success we need three pillars—a job, a house and a friend—and for a drug addict, that friend can often be a therapist, and we believe the same.

Stuart McDonald: I thank the Minister for his statement and his letter, and of course we all desperately want to see the consumption of drugs and the devastation he referred to tackled urgently. Aspects of the strategy are welcome, including acceptance of Dame Carol Black’s recommendations—I think he said “all”, but perhaps he could clarify that—as well as funding for treatment, including harm reduction; more use of diversion from prosecution; work to tackle organised crime; and a commitment to collaboration with the devolved Governments.
However, I do not think the Minister will be shocked that I want to push him again on the need for overdose prevention facilities. I appreciate that he does not share my keenness for them, but given there is strong evidence from other countries that they help to reduce harm significantly, surely there must now be some trials conducted in the UK to confirm whether they can help here, too. That would be exactly strengthening the evidence base he has referred to a couple of times in his statement. Can I also push him on drugs checking facilities and on the regulation of pill presses? What are the implications of his strategy for these policies, because as far as I can see, it is silent on them?
If the Minister cannot answer those questions positively, then what really is different about this strategy compared with the other six that have been produced in the last quarter of a century? Is he not at risk of recycling the failed war on drugs in relentlessly ramping up punishment when the Home Office’s own research shows that that does not work? Is the UK not at risk of being left behind by the evidence-led public health approaches being followed by many other countries across Europe, north America and further afield?
Finally, the Minister may be aware of the campaign to tackle stigma launched today by the Scottish Government, recognising that people struggling with a drug problem should get support and treatment like those with other health conditions. Will he agree that tackling such stigma is vital in order to encourage people to seek the help that they need?

Kit Malthouse: I obviously recognise the hon. Gentleman’s concern in this area, given the scale of the problem in Scotland, which is by far and away the worst in the western world. I know that the party of which he is a member, and the Government in place in Scotland, have relatively recently made a similar investment along the same lines in health treatment.
On drug consumption rooms, I have always said that my mind is open to the evidence, and I am in correspondence with my counterpart, the drugs Minister in the Scottish Government, about what that evidence might be. As far as I can see thus far, it is patchy. It is very hard to divine the difference between an overall health approach on drug consumption and the specific impact of a drug consumption room. However, we continue to be in dialogue with the Scottish Government, as we are on pill presses and, indeed, on drug checking. My commitment to the drugs Minister in Scotland was to continue that dialogue and see what we could do.
On overdose prevention centres, at the moment, under current legislation, we believe there are a number of offences that would be committed in the running of one of those rooms, and that is a legislative obstacle to their  running. In the end, though, the biggest impact we have seen in all parts of the world that have been successful in this area has been from a widespread investment in health and rehabilitation. I hope that the Scottish Government will support the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross), the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, who has been very concerned about this issue and has been driving a campaign forward in the Scottish Parliament.
On stigma, I am afraid I do not necessarily agree. While we want to work closely to make sure that those who are addicted to class A drugs get the treatment they need, we need to be careful not to send confusing signals to those people who otherwise indulge in class A drugs and drive a huge amount of trade but do not regard themselves as addicted. I will be interested to see what the progress is in Scotland.
The key thing in all the home nations is that, as we roll out our various policies, we learn from each other. My pledge is that I will continue the home nations summits, which I have been holding regularly, most recently a couple of months ago in Belfast, to make sure that we do exactly that.

Steve Brine: I think this new long-term strategy looks excellent. It is a thoughtful piece of work, it is funded, and I think it strikes the right balance between head and heart, so well done to the Government. Chapter 3 deals with support for families and mentions “family-based” treatment, particularly where
“parents are themselves dependent on drugs or alcohol.”
Could the Minister expand on that a little? Is that through the new family hubs that were announced in the Budget? Is it through local authorities? Will he just say a bit more about that, please?

Kit Malthouse: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his words of encouragement. It has been an enormous effort across the whole of Government to put this plan together. I congratulate my team, and I thank my fellow Ministers who have worked on putting it in place. My hon. Friend is quite right that we need to focus very much on drugs in the home. The funding that is put in place, although it is routed through the Department of Health and Social Care, will go to local authorities, which will then be able to design their own services locally to fit their own requirements and demographic. Some of that might be in the home, some of it might be residential, and some of it might be on an out-patient basis. We do not want to be prescriptive at this stage, but this will be channelled through local authorities, which can design services appropriately.

George Howarth: I welcome the measures set out in the Government’s new strategy and the funding that goes with it. I particularly welcome the emphasis on disrupting supplies and dealing with those who already have addiction problems. One piece of the jigsaw that seems to be missing, although I may have missed it, is targeting of so-called drug barons and the extent to which money laundering is going on in this country, always through legitimate businesses and increasingly, I think, through some private landlords. Will the Minister say a word about how the Government intend to tackle that specific problem?

Kit Malthouse: The right hon. Gentleman puts his finger on one of the key issues. One of the issues that I have discussed with the police is that when we arrest people, they ought to be high-quality arrests of people who have unique skills, so that when they are taken out of circulation, specific damage is done to the business of drugs. I have likened it, in this festive season, to that Christmas cracker joke: “How do you kill a circus? Go for the juggler.” We need to make sure in each of these groups that the juggler is dealt with on a systemic basis, but key to doing that is following the money.
The right hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that, with the Minister for Security and Borders, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), who is here on the Front Bench and leads on economic crime, we have an operation under way with the National Crime Agency called Project Plutus, which is about both intercepting that money and, critically, learning about the flows of money, within the UK—whether that is into property assets or elsewhere—and internationally. If we can cut the money flow, then the business itself becomes pointless and hopefully it will disappear.

John Redwood: I strongly welcome the Minister’s plan and intent, and I wish him every success with it. On that money point, will he make it clear to the people making these big profits that the state will pursue them to take the money back?

Kit Malthouse: We absolutely will, and our plan contains an ambition to significantly increase the denial of assets to the criminal fraternity. We know that this business, if it is a business—a horrible business—is prosecuted for profit. It is all about the money, so if we can make it a low-return, high-risk business, we will deter a lot of people from getting involved.

Jeff Smith: I welcome the focus in the strategy on treatment and recovery; £780 million is a significant investment, and I commend the Government for that. On supply and demand, I fear we are being offered an enhanced version of the same general approach that has failed for the last 50 years, and I am sad to say that it will fail for the next 10 years. On drug consumption rooms, the Minister said that the evidence is “patchy”. Surely, then, this is the time for some proper trials and pilots so that we can get the evidence. There is a lot of talk in the strategy about evidence; surely the Government have a duty now to allow some of those trials to get the evidence that these drug consumption rooms—I prefer to call them overdose prevention centres—can save lives.

Kit Malthouse: As I say, I think there is a big difference with this plan, which is that on the supply side we are very much coming at this from an economic point of view. We have done an enormous amount of work to examine the nature of the business. We are not necessarily looking at the individuals involved, who very often are replaced if they are arrested—sometimes within hours—but fundamentally at the structure of the business, and interfering with it in a way that means it does not reoccur, using the method of distribution and communication against the business to make sure that we stamp it out. We are showing success across the country, particularly on county lines.
On drug consumption rooms, as I say, we remain open to evidence. We are looking at the evidence that has been presented by the Scottish Government, and we will respond to the Minister there shortly. However, as I say, even if that evidence was compelling—I am not convinced that it is at the moment—there are legislative obstacles that mean that we have no option for the moment but to focus on health investment and making sure that we ramp up treatment and rehabilitation, which we have seen have effect across the world.

Crispin Blunt: I welcome the commitment in the strategy to building a world-leading evidence base, and the funding of it, with a cross-Government innovation fund to test and learn. Given our desire to become world leaders in this space, will the Minister confirm that that evidence will include international examples and evidence?

Kit Malthouse: I am more than happy to confirm that we will look anywhere in the world where there are good ideas that are having impact and effect, but the evidence has to be properly evaluated, properly peer reviewed and scientifically proven, because we are dealing with people’s lives here. Across the world, we have seen unintended consequences from measures taken on narcotics, which we do not want to repeat. I know that my hon. Friend has done a lot of work in this area and that he is very well informed. I hope that, over the months and years to come, we can communicate regularly on this issue.

Kate Green: The Minister will know that many women end up in the criminal justice system because of substance misuse and addiction, and often exploitation. Can he say how the drugs strategy that the Government have announced today will link to whole-system approaches to women’s offending, such as we have applied successfully in Greater Manchester to roll out a programme of support that enables women to desist or avoid entering the criminal justice system?

Kit Malthouse: First, all those in the secure estate who have a drug dependency or drug problem will receive a treatment place. We have made the commitment that 100% will be covered, and that obviously includes female offenders. On top of that, we want to ensure that as they exit the secure estate and rejoin society, they can also access high-quality treatment places configured to their own requirements, demographics and geography. It will be down to local partners to design those services off the back of the funding that we are providing. Our only ask is for a rigorous evaluation and results framework in each area of the country to show that the money we are investing has the desired impact.

Dr Caroline Johnson: Sobriety tags—wearable devices that monitor alcohol consumption in offenders—were trialled first in Lincolnshire and have been rolled out due to their success in preventing 90% of people from consuming alcohol while wearing them. Could such an approach be useful for those taking drugs?

Kit Malthouse: I congratulate my hon. Friend on an extremely good question, and a very topical one. She will be pleased to hear that this morning I met the  Korean ambassador and that country’s superintendent of police, with whom we do an awful lot of work, not least on international money flows. I raised in particular my interest in the research and invention by a Korean research institute of a drugs tag—a wearable device that detects drug consumption in somebody’s sweat. We are very interested in the technology and have a fund that we can invest in such technological developments. She is right that, on sobriety ankle tags, we are seeing 97% compliance, and we think that there is a role for such checking in drugs.

Liz Saville-Roberts: Diolch yn fawr iawn, Dirprwy Lefarydd. I know and the Minister knows—we all know—that penalising drug users does not save lives, and the uncoordinated criminal justice system that we suffer makes a bad situation worse in Wales, where drug deaths have increased by 78% in the last 10 years. The devolution of justice to Wales would allow a whole-system approach to offender rehabilitation. If that is good enough for London and for Manchester, when will it be good enough for those families who presently have to grieve in Wales?

Kit Malthouse: I am afraid that the devolution of justice in Wales would not achieve the right hon. Lady’s suggested objectives, not least because the drug supply lines into Wales run from forces in England—from Liverpool, the west midlands and London. A co-ordinated approach to the problem is required from a policing point of view, making sure that we enforce consistently across the country where we can. My view is that enforcement in Scotland, for example, is held back by that lack of co-ordination. We would like to try to improve it. We need to work more closely together, but we cannot pretend that this problem affects the home nations separately. We must work together.

Nickie Aiken: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s 10-year strategy to fight the evil that is the drugs industry. I particularly welcome the emphasis on holding professional classes to account for their actions. They may want to buy their Fairtrade coffee and go to the farmers’ market to buy organic food, but perhaps they should spend more time thinking about the cocaine that they buy for their weekend parties, because that fuels county lines, which is possibly the worst grooming and safeguarding concern for our young people. Does he agree that we must treat the drug barons involved in county lines as predators who are using and grooming children? Perhaps we should look to put them on the sex offenders’ register and ensure that they are held to account for their crimes against children.

Kit Malthouse: I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments. She represents what is sadly one of the drug epicentres of the country in central London, and she is right that much of the drug abuse, violence and degradation is driven by casual, thoughtless use by people who do not regard themselves as addicted but who are nevertheless complicit in the violence. In spring next year, we hope to publish a White Paper with a structure of escalating impositions on such individuals, which means that we will be as likely to see a drugs operation outside Lancaster Gate or Bayswater tube station or in Belgravia as in  other parts of the capital to ensure that we get among those people. She is right that we must focus very much on those drug barons and put them behind bars if we possibly can.

Florence Eshalomi: I associate myself with the comments of the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken). We do need to clamp down on those barons who exploit our young people. That includes those who exploit young girls—they often do not get talked about in the whole issue of county lines—who are criminally exploited, gang-raped and sexually assaulted by drug barons; they used them even during lockdown to push drugs up and down the country.
Will the Minister outline how he will help not just the Metropolitan police but forces across the country to get the technology and investment they need to deal with this issue? The drug barons get smarter every day—it is not just about burner phones; they adapt their business models day in, day out and are always one step ahead—so the police need resources now.

Kit Malthouse: I agree with both the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken). Of the £300 million that we will be spending, £145 million will be on enhancing and turbocharging our effort against county lines.
Both hon. Members made a good point about the pernicious nature of the exploitation perpetrated by these drug dealers on young people. I hope that they will both be interested to know that police forces have brought successful prosecutions on the grounds of modern slavery. It would be good to see a prosecution on the basis of child grooming, not least because we think it would be an enormous deterrent to a drug dealer to know they would spend their time inside on the sex offenders’ wing.

Philip Hollobone: I warmly welcome the Government’s 10-year anti-drugs strategy. Will my right hon. Friend the Minister for Crime and Policing join me in congratulating Northamptonshire police, which has had considerable success in recent months and years in busting county lines drug gangs in and out of Kettering and the county, aided not least by automatic number plate recognition technology? Can we have more ANPR so that we can identify the vehicles that the drugs barons are driving around in?

Kit Malthouse: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I agree that Northamptonshire police’s bust a couple of weeks ago was remarkable. It was a huge one, intercepting drugs valued into the many millions of pounds. That will have had a massive impact on that particular business and, I guess, left it vulnerable to those who want to collect the debts.
My hon. Friend is right that the key to interfering with this business—it is critical—is gripping the transport network. As I hope he knows, we have funded a taskforce in the British Transport police, which every day is intercepting drugs and money, and young people exploited on the rail network. Our analysis of ANPR, making sure that we understand movements and therefore raise the likelihood of a drug interception on the road, improves every day. I hope he will see that in his constituency in the months to come.

Rupa Huq: A shiny new 10-year strategy sounds good, but the Government also need to address unfinished business. Three years after the Minister’s Government legislated for medical cannabis on the NHS, why have only three prescriptions ever been written for it, leaving families broke, having shelled out privately to fund their kids’ amelioration of pain?

Kit Malthouse: That is a matter for the Department of Health and Social Care, but, where requests have come to me to facilitate the acquisition of those products for affected families who need them, we have moved heaven and earth to do so as quickly as we could. The hon. Lady might be interested to know that we are reaching the end of a piece of work by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs on barriers to research and medical exploitation of particular compounds. I hope that we will be able to publish that soon and cover some of the regulatory hurdles that she points to.

John Penrose: I welcome the 10-year strategy’s focus on both prevention and enforcement as well as treatment. I welcome that it pledges to implement, I think, all of Dame Carol Black’s excellent recommendations, but there was one glaring omission in her terms of reference: any attempt to address the underlying legislative structure of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. From that moment, we have seen a burgeoning of the illegal industry, and that is our current drugs problem. Do the Government have any intention to address this underlying, much more difficult and intractable issue?

Kit Malthouse: I understand what my hon. Friend said about the implications of the Act. At the moment, we do not have any plans to revise it, but we will bring forward a White Paper in the spring that will lay out, in particular, where we want to go on dealing with the overwhelming volume of drug consumption, which is among those who do not regard themselves as addicted.

Tony Lloyd: I also welcome the move, if it is genuine, to begin to treat the serious use of class A drugs as a health, rather than a criminal justice, problem. That will make a material difference if the money is there. We know that one driver of criminal gangs is high-volume cannabis sales that allow the structure to remain intact. Will the Minister look very seriously at evidence from Portugal, for example, on using administrative methods, or from parts of North America or other European countries where cannabis has been taken out of the drug supply industry? It is radical, but it may make a real difference.

Kit Malthouse: Our intentions are genuine and the money is there; I hope and believe that the strategy will make a difference over the next decade. As I said, we will look at evidence from around the world. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman, however, that it is widely accepted that the legalisation of cannabis in California has been a disaster. Although Portugal has seen the number of drug deaths drop, drug consumption has risen, and it still does enforcement very heavily on supply. The picture across the world definitely needs examination, but I am not sure that it will lead to the lessons that he outlines.

Simon Hoare: I know that my right hon. Friend will need no persuading on this point, but will he set out his view on how the strategy will help those of us who represent rural constituencies and our rural communities? Very often, this is seen as an urban problem. He knows that county lines comes into the small, rural market towns of North Dorset, as it does into other counties, and missing the opportunity to nip that problem in the bud would be a huge omission.

Kit Malthouse: As a rural Member, I have seen the impact of county lines in my constituency, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right that the pernicious effect of this method of distribution and marketing is felt in towns and villages across the land. Drug dealers have become very entrepreneurial, very crafty and clever in the way they do business, so we must be as well. I hope that in his county, in mine and in counties across the country, we will see a reduction in drug dealing in towns and villages and, as a result, a reduction in violence and degradation.

Lisa Cameron: I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I have worked in addiction services and I am the current chair of the all-party group on the 12 steps recovery programme for addiction. As the Minister will know, 12 steps programmes can really augment recovery, with a focus on long-term maintenance and support. The fantastic thing about them is that they are absolutely free. Will the Minister agree to meet Lord Brooke and myself from the all-party group to discuss how we can work in an integrated way regarding narcotics anonymous and alcoholics anonymous to help rehabilitation in future?

Kit Malthouse: I certainly will.

Jack Brereton: A number of buildings in Stoke-on-Trent South have recently been used to cultivate drugs, so will my right hon. Friend look at what more can be done to increase the punishments for those who allow their buildings to be used for such purposes, or do nothing to stop it?

Kit Malthouse: My hon. Friend raises a very good point. There are penalties in place, but I would be more than happy to look again at whether we are achieving the deterrent effect that we need. As I hope he knows—this is quite interesting—at this time of year when it is cold, one of the things that the police helicopter does, when it has spare time, is to go and look for buildings that are not exhibiting quite the same pattern of heating as others or are more insulated, because that is often a sign that something untoward is going on.

Fleur Anderson: I have also seen the impact of county lines on my constituency. Criminals who run county lines rely on using and abusing children. That could have been cut by imposing 14-year sentences on adults who involve children in criminal enterprise and by their going on to the sex offenders’ wing when they are caught. The Government whipped their MPs to vote against Labour motions to do just that in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. Will the Minister explain why he chose to block a sentencing regime that would protect vulnerable children as well as cutting county lines far faster?

Kit Malthouse: A number of very serious child exploitation offences that carry very heavy sentences are committed in relation to drugs. As the hon. Lady knows, in that Bill we are raising the penalty for child cruelty from 10 to 14 years. I hope that when she looks at the full package of sentencing, she will support the Bill, which she voted against.

Jane Hunt: I really welcome the strategy; it is fantastic news for Loughborough. I take this opportunity to thank Leicestershire police for the work that they have done over the past couple of years through Operation Lionheart; hopefully, the strategy will help to get us to phase 2 of Operation Lionheart, in order to go further and faster.
One thing that happened there, for example, was that when the police came in and arrested someone for drug dealing, and a closure order was operated by the council, everybody came out on to their balconies to clap and cheer the people who were doing the arrest. It was fantastic —really amazing. My first ask is: please can we have phase 2? Secondly, what are we planning on doing to work with voluntary groups such as the Carpenter’s Arms and the Exaireo Trust to really get rehabilitation going?

Kit Malthouse: I am pleased to hear that my hon. Friend is delighted by the actions of her local police force. I know that Leicestershire police are working hard on drugs in her constituency and elsewhere, and they form a critical part of the team effort, not least because of the transport links: many drugs gangs transit through Leicestershire on their way to other areas from those big exporting cities.
As for the local structure, we urge the organisations—councils, largely—that are leading on the rehabilitation effort to make sure that they are tying in some of the really valuable third sector organisations that have enormous experience and are thirsting to come along and help, very often from their own sense of commitment and to do good in their community. I am sure that my hon. Friend’s local health leaders on the programme will involve the organisations that she referred to.

Grahame Morris: Clearly, the cost to individuals, communities, the criminal justice system and the police system in the north-east is increasing, and that is a huge concern. Although there is much to welcome in the drugs strategy and in Dame Carol Black’s report, it seems that the Government are placing ideology above public safety. I say that because I always want public policy to be informed by the evidence. I have a spent a good deal of time in the drugs, alcohol and justice cross-party parliamentary group and there is ample evidence for the positive effects of heroin-assisted treatment programmes. Will the Minister consider the evidence and reconsider his position on heroin-assisted treatment rooms to save lives and create safer communities?

Kit Malthouse: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is conflating heroin-assisted treatment with overdose prevention centres, but as he may know, heroin-assisted treatment is under way in Cleveland. When licences are applied for, we look at them on their merits and on a case-by-case basis. I am happy to entertain other applications if people want me to. I will take the same view: that we have to look at them on a case-by-case  basis and see what investment goes alongside that to make sure that we get the wraparound approach that will result in the recovery that we want.

Robert Goodwill: A couple of years ago, I spent a day with paramedics in Scarborough. I was surprised to discover that they were getting an increasing number of call-outs to professional people in their 50s and early-60s who are suffering from serious, sometimes fatal, heart disease. The reason? Regular cocaine use over a number of years. Does the Minister agree that people who think that drug use is a victimless crime might well find themselves being the victims themselves?

Kit Malthouse: My right hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. A lot of people underestimate the impact that illicit drugs can have on not only their physical health, but, importantly, their mental health. I think all of us may have experience of meeting those who have perhaps taken too many drugs in their past and have seen the damage that that has done to their brains, as well as to their bodies. That is perhaps one of the education items that we need to include in our deterrence campaign.

Alison Thewliss: In 2016, in response to an HIV outbreak, Greater Glasgow and Clyde health board proposed a supervised drug consumption room—an overdose prevention room. The Home Office has sat on that request and blocked it for five years with absolutely no justification, while people in Glasgow, in my constituency, have died. When the Minister next comes to Glasgow, will he show the bravery that the Scottish Government’s Minister for Drug Policy has shown, come for a walk with me and tell me why people injecting in their groin in the snow tomorrow should support his drugs policy?

Kit Malthouse: The hon. Lady often vents her fury and anguish about the situation in Glasgow, which is appalling, on me. She rarely does it on our Scottish Government colleagues—

Alison Thewliss: Because they have listened!

Kit Malthouse: They, of course, have presided over the incidence of drug deaths in her city for many years now. Happily, they have made an investment in health just recently—just before the election in which they were standing to be re-elected as the Government. The hon. Lady can shout at me all she likes, but until she shouts at me and the Scottish Government, it will be hard to take her completely seriously.
Having said that, I believe that the strategy that we have put in place will have an impact in the hon. Lady’s constituency, not least because in the early part of 2019, as she will recall, it was enforcement efforts by the National Crime Agency in this country—in England—that intercepted 27 million street benzo tablets destined for Glasgow. That is the kind of impact that we can have on behalf of the whole United Kingdom.

Christian Wakeford: I speak as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on alcohol harm and as vice-chair of the drugs, alcohol and justice cross-party parliamentary group. Addiction is never a choice; I am grateful that the Government are now talking about drugs in terms of rehabilitation and addiction,  not just criminality. However, the cheapest and most readily accessible drug is alcohol. When will the Government develop an addiction and rehabilitation strategy that will include alcohol? This is one thing I never thought I would say, but I agree with hon. Members on the SNP Front Bench. We need to tackle the stigma of addiction, so will the Government agree to tackle it and remove the exclusion of addiction from the Equality Act 2010?

Kit Malthouse: As my hon. Friend may know, alcohol-related crime is of deep interest to me. That interest was behind my 10-year campaign to bring in sobriety ankle bracelets, which are having an enormous impact across the country with 97% compliance. While this strategy is drug-focused, it is worth pointing out that, as I am sure he knows, quite a number of people have an addiction both to drugs and to alcohol. The provision of treatment services that are primarily for their drug addiction will have a spill-over effect on their alcohol addiction; I hope that he will see an improvement in that as well.

Justin Madders: One of the frustrations that my constituents have is that if they live in a flat and someone else in the block is a persistent cannabis smoker, the whole block can reek of cannabis. It affects their health; it affects their children’s health. They go to the landlord, but the landlord says, “We won’t get involved unless there’s a police prosecution”—and more often than not, the police will not prosecute people for smoking in their own home. Is there anything in the strategy that will put an end to the misery that people experience in that situation?

Kit Malthouse: The hon. Gentleman raises a good point—a good counterpoint to issues that others have raised. As part of our strategy, in the next year we will produce a White Paper that we hope will contain a new system for changing such behaviour and deterring individuals from such casual, thoughtless and often cruel drug consumption, which not only interferes with his constituents’ happiness and enjoyment of their home, but drives an enormous amount of violence on the streets.

James Daly: I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and its emphasis on treatment and rehabilitation, but throughout the country, as we speak, shopkeepers and small businesses are at the mercy of drug-addicted shoplifters. In Greater Manchester, a shoplifting offence will be occurring at this moment with no response from the police. Shops are being pillaged. People have no defence to this type of drug-related crime. Although we want to concentrate on rehabilitation and ensure that we have the best treatment in place, we have to protect the victims of crime as well.

Kit Malthouse: My hon. Friend is exactly right. As he may know, last year I wrote to chiefs across the country to urge them to take such offences as seriously as possible as part of our general confrontation of crime in a retail environment. He is right that individuals who undertake such low-level crimes to fund a habit need to be punished for them, but at the same time we need to ensure that they do not do them again, which means treating their addiction.

Rachael Maskell: The year-on-year cuts to treatment services have been devastating, and we have also lost a lot of the skill of professionals working across treatment services. Will the Minister publish a workforce plan that not only rebuilds the treatment service, but ensures that people are skilled up to work in residential settings as well as in drug consumption rooms?

Kit Malthouse: We have undertaken to publish an annual report to Parliament evaluating our progress on all these matters.

Rob Butler: I very much welcome the strategy that the Minister has outlined today. I entirely agree about the vile practice of county lines drug dealing; having joined officers from Thames Valley police in Aylesbury on drugs operations, I know that one of the most shocking aspects is the way in which criminal gangs manipulate vulnerable people by taking over their home and using it as a base to carry out their trade. Can the Minister tell the House how the drugs strategy will help to tackle that evil exploitation?

Kit Malthouse: My hon. Friend is exactly right. The practice of cuckooing, particularly where it targets often vulnerable adults in a destination drug-dealing town or village, is a really horrible thing to witness and often results in violence and victimisation. The £145 million that we are putting in to turbocharge our effort on county lines, making sure that the big exporting forces are co-ordinated through the national county lines co-ordination centre with the importing forces, will allow us to get ahead of exactly the kind of exploitation that my hon. Friend points to.

Mary Glindon: The drugs, alcohol and justice cross-party parliamentary group fully supports Dame Carol’s recommendations as key. Will the Minister meet the group to discuss how treatment providers and service users can be actively consulted to make sure that the strategy works?

Kit Malthouse: I would be happy to take that meeting.

Robbie Moore: Drug dealing, unfortunately, happens under everybody’s nose in Keighley, which is why I am so delighted that the Government are delivering this plan. It was only a couple of months ago that a constituent sent me video evidence of drug drops by a Keighley taxi firm. One of the most harmful aspects of drug dealing in my constituency is the grooming of young children and getting them involved in the practice from an early age. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that that we will stop that vile practice by tackling the drug barons with much tougher sentences?

Kit Malthouse: My hon. Friend is exactly right. One of the most unpleasant characteristics of county lines is the exploitation—often victimisation and terrorisation—of vulnerable young people. They are often given drugs; they become addicted; they then run up debts and are forced to deal drugs on behalf of these appalling individuals. Over the past two years, the police have rescued a little over 4,000 individuals from exactly that situation. We hope that the investment we are making will rescue a hell of a lot more.

Rachel Hopkins: I welcome the strategy’s holistic approach, but there is an element of irony in it, given that it is the Minister’s party that has cut 60p in every £1 to local authorities over the past decade and has failed to address the structurally flawed police funding model affecting counties such as Bedfordshire, which has contributed to increasing drug-related issues in towns such as Luton. Will the Minister commit to addressing the core funding formula issues affecting forces such as Bedfordshire, to ensure the longer-term resilience of our police to tackle organised crime groups and drug-related crime in Luton?

Kit Malthouse: I am hesitant to point out that it was the hon. Lady’s party that crashed the economy, but nevertheless I feel compelled to do so. As she may have heard me say from the Dispatch Box, we have committed to bringing in a new funding formula, and work is under way to devise exactly that.

Lucy Allan: As somebody who has lost a family member to drugs, I am incredibly grateful to the Minister for bringing forward this 10-year strategy. I know only too well the misery that drugs cause children, families and communities, which so often leads to death. Does the Minister agree that addiction is an illness and we need to treat it as an illness? Sending people to prison time and again does not cure the problem, whereas access to good treatment is the solution.

Kit Malthouse: I agree that addiction is an illness or affliction that is outwith an individual’s control. Although addiction often drives individuals to commit crime, for which they must be punished, we have a duty to make sure that there is no repetition, which means that we need to treat the addiction in the best way possible in the circumstances. I am very sorry to hear that my hon. Friend has experienced that loss; there are too many families in this country who are in the same situation. I hope that our strategy will mean that those numbers reduce.

Jonathan Edwards: Richard Lewis, the chief constable of Cleveland police who is soon to take the helm at Dyfed-Powys, wrote in The Guardian recently that problem drug use must be seen as a health issue as opposed to a policing issue. His view was based on his experiences of the heroin-assisted treatment pilot programme in Middlesbrough. Will the Minister work with the Welsh Government to roll out that pilot across Wales so that it is seen as a treatment-based alternative to street drugs, dismantling the demand that sustains the operations of criminal gangs?

Kit Malthouse: I am already working with the Welsh Government as much as possible. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we have an ADDER project in south Wales, and we are working in close partnership with the Welsh Government on the health side to try to drive the numbers down.
While I am interested in examining heroin-assisted treatment, I am more interested in the new pharmacological treatment that is being rolled out in Wales. A monthly injection of depot buprenorphine effectively kills the craving for opiates, particularly heroin. I think that 600 or 700 people are now receiving it in Wales and indeed in England, with fantastic results. That is the kind of innovation of which we would like to see more.

Alexander Stafford: Drugs bring nothing more than pain and misery and leave nothing more than blood on our streets, fuelling human slavery, terrorism, child sexual exploitation and, ultimately, death. I therefore welcome the £145 million investment in tackling county lines, but does the Minister agree that we must win the war not only against those who push drugs but against those who find it socially acceptable to take them? Does he agree that we should pursue every possible solution, whether it is treatment, rehabilitation or stop and search, but should also introduce far longer and tougher jail sentences for those who push drugs?

Kit Malthouse: Well, Mr Speaker—Mr Deputy Speaker, I should say. Forgive me, but maybe, one day.
I agree with my hon. Friend that those who promote drugs, in his constituency and many others including mine, deserve sentences that will deter others from following their path. We need a 360-degree approach, attacking supply—as we are doing now, with ever greater skill—but also dealing with demand. By killing both, we will drive those people out of business completely.

Clive Efford: I welcome today’s announcement, but the Minister must know that delivering this strategy will demand a change of mindset on the Government’s part. All the services that will be required to co-operate have suffered serious cuts over the last 10 years. We have lost 21,000 police officers, and drug and alcohol services and probation services have been cut severely. Will this new money do no more than backfill the holes that have been left by the Government cuts, or will we actually see any new services?

Kit Malthouse: The hon. Gentleman is refusing to accept any culpability for the financial situation of the country 12 years ago, when a number of Members—certainly on our side of the House—were still teenagers. Notwithstanding his claim, however, we intend to build a world-class treatment system that will require the acquisition of skills and personnel across the country; and, as I have said, we have undertaken to come to the House annually to report on our progress.

Duncan Baker: I thank the Minister for paying tribute to the Norfolk constabulary in his opening remarks. They have done a fine job in smashing county lines drug dealing.
Recreational cannabis undeniably causes harm to individuals and society. When I was a much younger man, I was asked to play football—mainly because I was not very good—with a drug rehabilitation group, and I saw at first hand the devastation that drugs had caused those young men. Notwithstanding the arguments that legalisation would eliminate the crime committed by the illicit trade, I feel that it would not. Can the Minister assure me that we will never legalise cannabis, and that this new strategy will ensure that we crack down on illicit drug use and the misery that it causes?

Kit Malthouse: I recognise the situation that my hon. Friend has posited. Indeed, if we look around the world at the countries that have gone down the path that he eschews, we see a pattern of impact that is not completely desirable—and of course we do not know what the impact of overuse of that particular substance will be in  the long term, particularly the impact on young people’s mental health. We currently have no plans to change the status of cannabis, and I hope that my hon. Friend will participate in the promotion of the White Paper when it appears in order to bring about the change in behaviour that both he and I seek.

Tommy Sheppard: I had hoped for something better, especially from this Minister, and I think that a great many people will have been disappointed by his statement. Rather than bringing fresh thinking to the problem, he is doubling down on the failed strategies of the past. He knows that the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 is not fit for purpose—he has already accepted that it constrains and compromises his ability to deal with this problem—so will he commit himself to an evidence-led review of the legislation?

Kit Malthouse: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is disappointed, and is disappointed in me in particular. I have to say that I am disappointed in him, because while some of us try to remain open-minded on this issue and seek evidence, I am not sure that his position is shifting at all.
As I have said, we are making a significant investment in what is internationally accepted to be the most efficacious way to deal with pernicious addiction to heroin and crack, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that, as he has welcomed it in Scotland. No doubt he has accepted and welcomed what the Scottish Government are doing, and I hope he will accept and welcome what we are doing here, and will not be in denial just because it is us. I hope he will be encouraged by the fact that our plan includes a commitment to build a really strong, world-beating evidence base, drawn from across the world, which will allow us to make drug policy into the future.  While we have a 10-year-ambition, this is a journey that we are just starting, and we will learn as we go. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will undertake to learn too.

Ronnie Cowan: As this Government seek out more people to arrest, tomorrow the Global Commission on Drug Policy, backed by 14 former Prime Ministers and Presidents, will call on Governments to break their addiction to punishing users, and to legalise and legislate instead. When will the Government learn, from 50 years of experience, that they cannot arrest their way out of a drugs crisis?

Kit Malthouse: If we followed the hon. Gentleman’s logic, we would give up arresting burglars.

Margaret Ferrier: The Beacons in Blantyre, which is in my constituency, aims to provide treatment for those with drug addiction whose needs are not being met through the traditional routes. It is volunteer-led, and, crucially, it looks for volunteers with lived experience. It is an excellent community asset. Have the Government considered the ways in which organisations of this kind can contribute to successful intervention and rehabilitation across the UK?

Kit Malthouse: As I said earlier, we hope that those who design the local frameworks to bring about the recovery chains that we want to see will take account of the skills and facilities that can be provided by the third sector, but in the hon. Lady ‘s constituency that will obviously be a matter for the Scottish Government.

Nigel Evans: I thank the Minister for his statement, and for answering questions for more than an hour.

Point of Order

Iain Duncan Smith: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Thank you for allowing it.
I have just discovered that the United States Government have finally decided on a diplomatic boycott of the winter Olympic games in China. As you will know, many Members on both sides of the House who are members of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China have called for the UK Government to do the same. It is a matter of distress and annoyance to us that my Government have failed so far to express a view on the issue. Has the Chair received any signal that the UK Government are likely to come to the House and say whether they—both Ministers and officials—will also boycott the winter Olympics? They should do it now.

Nigel Evans: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and for his earlier mention of it to me. I have not received any information to date that the Government intend to make any statement on that or any other matter this evening, but should they change their mind, Members will be notified in the usual way and there will be a scrolling announcement on the Annunciators. In any event, the Minister on the Treasury Bench has heard the point of order, and I am sure she will bring it to the attention of the relevant Ministers. Should a statement be made, either tomorrow or later this week, the House will be informed in the usual way.

Armed Forces Bill: Programme (No.4)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Armed Forces Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 8 February 2021 in the last Session of Parliament (Armed Forces Bill: Programme), as varied by the Orders of 23 June 2021 (Armed Forces Bill: Programme (No. 2)) and 13 July 2021 (Armed Forces Bill: Programme (No. 3)):
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
Subsequent stages
(2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(3) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Leo Docherty.)
Question agreed to.

Armed Forces Bill

Consideration of Lords amendments

Clause 7 - Concurrent jurisdiction

Leo Docherty: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

Nigel Evans: With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Lords amendment 2, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 3 to 50.

Leo Docherty: This Bill delivers for our armed forces, renews the Armed Forces Act 2006, improves the service justice system and delivers on the Government’s commitment to further enshrine the armed forces covenant into law. We therefore resist Lords amendment 1, principally because we have faith in the service justice system and the protocol that this Bill creates to ensure that serious cases involving murder, manslaughter and rape are heard in the jurisdiction—civilian or military—to which they are best suited.
The amendment seeks to introduce a presumption that these serious offences are heard in the civilian courts. Such a presumption is unnecessary. The service justice system is fair, robust and capable of dealing with all offending. Indeed, that was the conclusion of the retired High Court judge Sir Richard Henriques QC in his recent review, which came before the House in October 2021. On page 199 of his report, he fully agreed with the Government’s decision to retain unqualified concurrent jurisdiction for murder, manslaughter and rape.

Bob Neill: The Minister rightly refers to Sir Richard Henriques’ report. Sir Richard is someone for whom I have great regard. My hon. Friend will also know that, prior to that, there was a report by His Honour Judge Shaun Lyons, who had served as an officer and as a senior circuit judge. It was Judge Lyons’ recommendation to do away with concurrent jurisdiction that led to the amendment in the Lords. Why does the Minister feel that it would be appropriate to take on board the rest of the Lyons report recommendations but to leave out this particular one? That seems a little strange, given that it was accepted that, overall, the Lyons review was a very constructive piece of work.

Leo Docherty: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, which brings me to my next point. Sir Richard’s endorsement of the service justice system capability echoes the conclusion of the process audit that was conducted as part of the Lyons review of March 2019 to which my hon. Friend referred. It had previously found that the service police do indeed have the necessary training, skills and experience to investigate allegations of domestic abuse and sexual assault. However, to answer his point, we continually seek to improve our capability, which is why the creation of a new defence serious crimes unit—which this Bill delivers in clause 12 —headed by a new provost marshal for serious crime  demonstrates the Government’s commitment to achieving the highest investigative capabilities for the service justice system. In simple terms, this is a good thing for all defence people.

Jim Shannon: The evidential base that seems to have been in the news this last while shows a rise in the incidence of sexual abuse and harassment in the Army. Will this legislation be retrospective? In other words, will those cases that have happened in the last few years be investigated, and will there be a reduction in cases in the future?

Leo Docherty: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Given the reports of increased allegations of sexual misconduct and harassment, which have been movingly pointed out through the work of the House of Commons Defence Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton), the Ministry of Defence’s response will be to ensure that all those categories of alleged crime or misconduct are considered outwith the chain of command. I look forward to talking more about this when my hon. Friend brings forward her debate in Westminster Hall on Thursday.

Bob Neill: The Minister rightly refers to the improvements in the service justice system, which we all recognise. However, as I understand it, the service justice system does not have some of the safeguards that are available under the criminal procedure rules on the treatment of vulnerable witnesses, in relation to special measures being taken in the same way. In particular, in the criminal justice system we are now rolling out pre-recorded evidence under section 28 for the alleged victims of crime. Would he at least undertake that, if we have concurrent jurisdiction, the same safeguards and protections will apply equally, for witnesses and defendants, under a service jurisdiction arrangement as they will now under the civilian procedure? It would be unfair if witnesses or defendants had a lesser standard of service and lesser protection, particularly in the case of vulnerable complainants.

Leo Docherty: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. In addition to the formation of the defence serious crimes unit, we are making non-legislative changes and enhancements in procedure so that the experience of the victim in the civil or military system has parity. We look forward to keeping the House updated on that.

Kevan Jones: I welcome the setting up of the serious crimes unit, but it is a matter of fact, as we heard in evidence in Committee, that the number of incidents that will be investigated is quite small compared with those investigated by the civilian police. The serious crimes unit will therefore always be at a disadvantage in terms of not having the knowledge and the breadth of experience that is available to civilian police forces.

Leo Docherty: The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. That is why we are trying to consolidate experience across all three services and have a much closer working relationship with the civilian police. We look forward to seeing how the new format rolls out, but we have confidence in the structure.
With these improvements, the MOD will be in a stronger position to respond to serious crime. However, if things do go wrong, the independent service police complaints commissioner—a body also created by the Bill, in clause 11—will be able to determine the appropriate course of action in response to a complaint. These measures will ensure that the service justice system is more effective and efficient in the round and that it provides a better service to those who use it, which will in turn increase public confidence in the system.

Jamie Stone: Would the Minister care to comment on something that the hon. Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton), who chairs the sub- Committee, said? She said:
“Military women are being denied justice. It is clear to us that serious sexual offences should not be tried in the court martial system.”
I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on that.

Leo Docherty: In simple terms, there are circumstances —normally involving the welfare of the alleged victim—in which it would be advantageous for a case to be heard in the military context. Those cases might be small in number, but it is important for the sake of the victim that agility and choice are retained in terms of our approach.
Furthermore, while the Government accept the need to improve decision making in relation to concurrent jurisdiction, we do not agree with the Lords amendment that an Attorney General consent function is the best way to achieve that. That is because, for the Attorney General to make an informed, meaningful and final decision, the request for consent must come at the end of the investigatory process when key decisions on jurisdiction have already been made. The Government instead believe that a better approach is to strengthen the prosecutors’ protocol. Clause 7 ensures that decisions on jurisdiction are left to the independent service justice and civilian prosecutors, using guidance they have agreed between them. In simple terms, where there is disagreement on jurisdiction, the Director of Public Prosecutions always has the final say. For this reason and others, I urge hon. Members to reject Lords amendment 1.

Alicia Kearns: This Bill has so much to recommend it, and it is so good. I also want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton), who has done incredible work on this. However, I am struggling to understand what extenuating circumstances there might be where a military court would be better placed to opine on rape than a civilian court. In cases of torture, I completely understand this, given the concept of civilians and military individuals understanding how torture might manifest itself, but in cases of rape involving soldier on soldier or man versus woman on the street, I cannot understand what extenuating circumstances would require a different type of court.

Leo Docherty: I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for her comments about my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham. The advantage of having a choice between civil or military jurisdiction relates to the possibility of a serving person being involved in a case of rape in which their welfare would be undermined by it being heard in a civilian court because of the slower process of the case and the fact that its being heard in the  civilian jurisdiction might impede any postings or normal career progression. My principal point relates to the welfare interest of alleged victims, where having agility and choice is advantageous.

Simon Hoare: Who chooses the jurisdiction in which such a case is heard? What grounds would they hear to inform that choice?

Leo Docherty: The civilian prosecutor always has the final say.
It is clear that Lords amendment 2 fails to recognise the purpose of this legislation. The new covenant duty works by requiring listed public bodies to have due regard for the principles of the armed forces covenant when exercising a relevant housing, education or healthcare function. This amendment seeks to add the Secretary of State to the list of public bodies but, of course, none of the housing, education or healthcare functions is a function of the Secretary of State. This amendment would therefore not serve any meaningful purpose.
Of course the Secretary of State, like other Defence Ministers, is entirely accountable for delivering the armed forces covenant and reports annually to Parliament to that effect, and he answers Defence questions and attends other parliamentary events. In designing the covenant duty, we carefully considered which functions and policy areas the new duty should encompass, including those that are the responsibility of central Government. We were mindful that central Government are responsible for the overall strategic direction of national policy, whereas responsibility for the actual delivery of nuts-and-bolts frontline services and their impact generally rests at local level. The inclusion of central Government, by naming the Secretary of State in the scope of the duty, is simply not necessary.
The other vital element of our approach rests with the new powers granted to the Government to add to the scope of the duty, if need be. The new covenant duty is evergreen and can effectively adapt to the changing needs and concerns of the armed forces community. We continue to engage with the Covenant Reference Group, which is made up of independent representatives from service charities, such as the Royal British Legion, and officials from local, devolved and central Government. This will feed into our existing commitment to formally review the overall performance of the covenant duty following this legislation. The review will be submitted to the Select Committee on Defence and will also be covered in the covenant annual report.
Furthermore, the Bill requires that the statutory guidance in support of the covenant duty is laid before Parliament in draft so colleagues can inspect and scrutinise it before it is brought into force. Ministers and the Ministry of Defence will continually be held to account on the delivery of the armed forces covenant.

Bob Neill: The Minister is being most generous with his time, for which I thank him profoundly. He will know that the author of this amendment is the noble Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Margaret Thatcher’s Lord Chancellor and the current president of the Society of Conservative Lawyers, of which I have the honour to be the deputy chairman. He does not exactly have a record  of being antagonistic towards our armed forces, but he is concerned that there does not appear to be a legal commitment in the Bill to the armed forces covenant. If this be the means, or if there be some other means, will the Minister at least give us an assurance that the Government will look to introduce a legal commitment to the armed forces covenant, to go alongside the moral and political commitments that we already have? If that could be achieved, we will be happy.

Leo Docherty: I do not doubt the commendable spirit behind the noble Lord’s intention, but this is a case of unnecessary law being bad law and a potential complicating factor. For that reason, principally, I urge the House to reject Lords amendment 2.

Nigel Evans: I remind the House that this debate finishes at 8.39 pm, so we do not have a lot of opportunity. Could Back Benchers please focus on pithy, short contributions?

Stephen Kinnock: It is truly an honour to be standing in front of you, Mr Deputy Speaker, in my new role as shadow Minister for the armed forces.
I pay tribute to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), who recognised the essential contribution made by our armed forces to the safety and security of our country and who played such an important role in scrutinising this legislation.
In my previous role as shadow Minister with responsibility for Afghanistan, I recently stood at the Dispatch Box to commend the courage, dedication and professionalism shown by our armed forces in the most challenging of circumstances. Two weeks ago I was pleased to pay tribute to those who served in Operation Pitting when they visited Parliament. This House, our country and the free world owe a huge debt of gratitude to those service personnel who, for 20 years, prevented terrorist attacks from being launched from Afghanistan and who secured opportunities for women and girls that would never have been possible otherwise. I thank them for their heroic service.
I look forward to engaging with the Minister. I assure him that I will support him when his Department is doing the right thing, but I will also hold him robustly to account when the Government fail to stand up for our armed forces or to act in the national interest.
As the Opposition have noted throughout its passage, this Bill is a once-in-a-Parliament opportunity to tangibly improve the lives of our armed forces personnel, veterans and their families. I know they are held in the highest regard by Labour and by all on both sides of the House. For them and for all others who have served, we have a duty to make this legislation provide the very best.
Labour supports this Bill in principle, but we have consistently pressed the Government to ensure they match their lofty rhetoric with tangible action. As it stands, the Bill is a missed opportunity to deliver the laudable promises made in the armed forces covenant for all personnel, veterans and their families. That is why I am pleased that the amendments passed in the other place so closely mirror those that Labour pressed during the Bill’s Commons stages. I therefore hope the Government will take this opportunity to think again.
Lords amendment 1 would ensure that the most serious crimes, including murder, manslaughter, domestic violence, child abuse, rape and sexual assault with penetration are tried in the civilian courts when committed in the UK, except when the Attorney General has given consent. For too long, it has been clear that the investigation and prosecution of these crimes within the service justice system simply does not work. The latest Ministry of Defence figures show that, from 2015 to 2020, the conviction rate for rape cases tried under courts martial was just 9%, whereas the latest data available suggest that the conviction rate was 59% for cases that reached civilian courts, with considerably more cases being tried each year. More than three quarters of victims were women, and seven in 10 victims held the rank of private.
Lords amendment 1 directly addresses the treatment of women in our armed forces, which is rightly receiving public attention, and it is an issue that disproportionately affects women in the lower ranks. Until there is fairness, transparency and justice in these cases, the actions of a tiny minority will be allowed to tarnish the reputation of our world-class armed forces.

Bob Neill: Those statistics bear out a significant concern that also exists in the civilian jurisdiction. There is a disparity in parallel authorities between victims and perpetrators. Does the hon. Gentleman think we should be particularly anxious to ensure that the same protection, the same support and the same procedural devices to protect witnesses—screens, special measures and so on—are available were any of these cases to be heard in a court martial setting as opposed to a civilian setting, where they would automatically be available? The position of the private soldier is not dissimilar from the position of the employee who is taken advantage of by her boss, for example, or something similar. There is a strong case for seeking to ensure equity, in whichever court a case is tried.

Stephen Kinnock: The hon. Gentleman’s expertise in this area is clear for all in this House to see. He is absolutely right that, given the chain of command, ensuring protection for witnesses and victims is essential. We clearly have more confidence in the civilian system to guarantee those. He asks whether the service system could provide those protections, but that seems a very odd way to go about it when the capacity and capability already exist in the civilian system. Why reinvent the wheel?
Will Ministers take this final opportunity to listen to the recommendations of a Government-commissioned, judge-led review, which expressed surprise that these cases were still being handled by courts martial? Will they listen to the expertise on their own Back Benches, as we have just heard, including the proposals made by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) in her Defence Sub-Committee report, “Protecting Those Who Protect Us: Women in the Armed Forces from Recruitment to Civilian Life”? Most importantly, will they listen to service personnel and veterans themselves?
More than 4,000 actively serving women and veterans contributed to that report and its recommendations. Today, a serving member of the Royal Navy whose court martial rape case collapsed due to a number of basic errors made by a service prosecutor called on the  Government to back this amendment. She was one of three women who launched a judicial review of the Defence Secretary’s decision not to adopt the recommendations of the Lyons review. She says:
“The value of this amendment for women like me cannot be overstated… This amendment will make the process independent. It will encourage more service personnel to report crimes. It will mean we have some protection from the appalling consequences we suffer when we report rape within our units.
“I am urging the government to accept this amendment. As service personnel we are citizens of this country and we deserve justice just like everyone else.”

Alicia Kearns: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that perhaps a sensible compromise might be to have this matter come back before the House in a year’s time, if the Bill does pass, to see whether cases are being properly prosecuted, whether we are getting the prosecution rates we need and whether women are being supported to get the justice they deserve when those senior to them commit the most abysmal and horrific of acts—acts that would be considered war crimes if they were done against a civilian but, because they are done by someone in the chain of command, somehow are considered a completely different situation?

Stephen Kinnock: I pay tribute to the hon. Lady’s experience and expertise, particularly in the field of foreign affairs. However, I think her proposal does not really make sense for where we are right now in this Chamber. We need to see a Government showing leadership. Those brave ladies who have come forward are showing that leadership, and I hope this Government will pay heed to it. The moment of truth is upon us, and we need to see that vote and that leadership now. These women have courage beyond their service to our country. They are showing this Government the way. I urge colleagues across the House to support the amendment.
I turn now to Lords amendment 2, which places the same legal responsibility to have “due regard” to the armed forces covenant on central Government as the current drafting requires of local authorities and other public bodies. This Bill piles new and often vague statutory responsibilities to deliver the covenant on a wide range of public bodies, but, mysteriously, those do not apply to central Government. In practice, this would create a farcical situation whereby the chair of school governors has a statutory responsibility to have due regard to the armed forces covenant, but Government Departments—including the Ministry of Defence—do not.
As the Royal British Legion has pointed out,
“many of the policy areas in which members of the Armed Forces community experience difficulty are the responsibility of national government or based on national guidance.”
Help for Heroes, Cobseo and other service charities know this too, as do Conservative Members, both in this House and in the other place. Ministers must not be allowed to offload responsibility for delivery.
How can it be that social care, pensions, employment and immigration are among the long list of areas we know will not be covered by this legislation? The exclusion of the Ministry of Defence from the responsible public bodies also means the Bill offers little to actively serving personnel. Our armed forces have gone above and beyond both to support our frontline response to the pandemic in the past year and, as I have mentioned, in Afghanistan.  What a contrast between the selfless service of our military personnel and a Government who are missing this crucial opportunity to make long-overdue improvements to the standard of service accommodation, while at the same time handing most of them another real-terms pay cut this year.

Stephen Doughty: I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. My hon. Friend mentions immigration, health and a whole range of central Government Departments responsible for delivering the covenant for our armed forces personnel. Does he agree that there is a missed opportunity in this Bill to deal with the situation facing many foreign and Commonwealth veterans who have bravely served—alongside our Welsh regiments, for example? We know the contribution of Fijians in that regard. There is a missed opportunity here, but there are other opportunities coming up where these issues may be resolved; does he urge the Government to support them?

Stephen Kinnock: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s personal and political expertise in this area. He is absolutely right that this was an opportunity to right the wrong he has so eloquently set out. There will be an opportunity tomorrow—our Front Bench has tabled an amendment—and there will be other opportunities, but it is a moral point of principle, and I hope the Government will listen and do the right thing in the vote tomorrow.
Without this amendment, the Bill’s principles will not deliver practical action for the squaddie in dilapidated single living accommodation who is without basics such as heating and hot water, the veteran struggling with their mental health who has to endure waiting times for treatment more than twice as long as Government targets, or the dispersed service family who struggle with the cost of childcare and getting in to work. Ministers must not be allowed to offload responsibility for the delivery of the covenant to cash-strapped local authorities and other overstretched public bodies. Central Government must be held to the same measurable, enforceable, national standards as local authorities and agencies. Only then can we truly end the postcode lottery on the armed forces covenant.
The Government are set to reject these amendments. Their majority means they may well win the votes, but in so doing the Conservatives will lose any credible claim to be the party of the armed forces. Service personnel will be asking why this Government’s manifesto pledge to put the covenant further into law delivers no improvements to their day-to-day lives. Veterans will be asking why they still face uneven access to services. Women will be wondering whether a career in the services is for them. These arguments will come back to the Government again and again—from this House, including from Government Back Benchers, from service charities, from armed forces communities and from the Opposition Benches, because Labour will always stand up for our armed forces.

Johnny Mercer: As I rise to speak in this debate, I first pay tribute to the officials in the Department. I know this is a complex Bill and   that with legislation such as this we must operate within the art of the possible. There are clearly areas where everybody would like to go further, but I understand the constraints and the dynamics at play, particularly around legislating for the armed forces covenant and so on.
However, there is one thing I am afraid I will not let pass without shining a spotlight on it: the issue of violence and sexual offences staying in the military justice system. I rise to speak with one purpose, and that is to resolutely support my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) in the work that she has done in this space. She has worked tirelessly, initially against the current but then with some support, to highlight the totally unacceptable experience of females in the military.
Today is a really difficult day for my hon. Friend, and unnecessarily so. I understand differences of opinion, particularly in this space, but where the evidence does not point to the decisions being made by those on the Front Bench, I am afraid I will speak up time and again.
Unfortunately, I was in the room when this decision was made. The evidence did not support the Secretary of State at the time and the evidence does not support the Secretary of State today. I cannot vote against the Lords amendment; it is not the right thing to do. Let me be clear: when the Secretary of State made that decision it was against the advice of the officials in the Department and against the advice of his Ministers.
Conviction rates for rape are lower in military courts than they are in civilian courts. That is a fact. We can pull up the facts at different times and during different processes on the journey to a sexual conviction, but the reality is that the conviction rates for rape are lower. Over the past five years, the average conviction rate for rape in civilian courts, when using Ministry of Justice data, is 34%; over the same five years, using the same data—the MOD’s data—the average conviction rate for rape is just 16% in military courts. Using Crown Prosecution Service data, the figures are even worse. In practice, this means that a military woman is far less likely to get justice than she would in civilian life. We cannot accept that. We cannot accept that on the Government Benches.
The MOD accepts that the contested conviction rate at court martial is significantly lower than it is in the Crown court. The Department suggests that, because the numbers involved in the service justice system are relatively so much smaller, the comparison is of little value. That does not make sense—it is ridiculous and illogical. We have to be honest: there is no point coming to this place and railroading through legislation that we all know to be the wrong decision simply because one individual has his course set and refuses to back out of that alley.

Alicia Kearns: Does my hon. Friend agree that it takes enormous courage for anyone to go to court in cases of child abuse, domestic abuse or rape—the issues we are talking about? I worked in the victims department at the Ministry of Justice, supporting people to go forward and get prosecutions, and one in seven Rutland residents is a veteran. Does my hon. Friend also agree that an insidious silence is forced on victims, gagging them and preventing them from going out to get justice in the first place, let alone once they get to a court?

Johnny Mercer: I do agree with those observations. To be honest, when I came into my role as the Veterans Minister, I knew that the experience of females in the military was totally unacceptable. When my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham published her report, a lot of what she wrote was not a surprise to me. I have daughters who want to join the military. It is something that we absolutely have to sort out.
I wish the Secretary of State was in his place. He has clearly laid his position on the line on this issue. Last week, he said that in 2020 1.6% of rapes reported to the civilian police made it to court, compared with 50% of those reported to military police. I cannot see how that can possibly be true, unless the numbers are so incomparably small as to be totally misleading. The trouble is that our lack of honesty in this place tonight—

Kevan Jones: What?

Johnny Mercer: Not in here but in what is coming forward from the Department. It places my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham in an absolutely invidious position. It is a straightforward integrity check for her.

Kevan Jones: Unbelievable.

Johnny Mercer: Sorry—does the right hon. Gentleman have an intervention to make?

Kevan Jones: The hon. Gentleman was the Minister who took the Bill through Committee; if he felt so strongly about this, what did he do about it? He is saying that since he is no longer a Minister he is now passionate about these issues, but he did nothing when he was a Minister.

Johnny Mercer: The right hon. Gentleman will understand that he was nowhere near the Department when I was a Minister. He has absolutely not a clue as to what I did to try to change this. He has no clue whatever.

Kevan Jones: You are just rewriting history.

Johnny Mercer: The right hon. Gentleman is more than welcome to make a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Defence and go and look at all the ministerial submissions on this issue, but that would require his dealing in the realms of fact rather than his rather pointless rhetoric. I am more than happy to have a conversation with him outside this place but this is a serious issue that frankly deserves better contributions than that—

Kevan Jones: rose—

Johnny Mercer: I am not going to give way. I am absolutely not going to give way for another interlude like that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham has done her work on this issue. It is a serious point. She has found the evidence and that evidence has been backed up by professionals, but in the Department there is one individual who is refusing to back down from the alleyway he has found himself in. My hon. Friend’s is a really valuable voice: she is the first female from the ranks to make it to this place. She has an extraordinarily valuable and powerful voice. For her to lose her position tonight because she has that integrity is not what we do. It is not teamwork and it is not the way this Government should operate. I support her wholeheartedly.

Simon Hoare: My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument and I certainly think that these issues are best dealt with in the civilian courts, but where I have a problem with the Lords amendment is in respect of the power invested in the Attorney General. I am not sure that the Attorney General, as a Law Officer, should have that power. I would welcome my hon. Friend’s comments on that.

Johnny Mercer: That is a really fair point. Such provision has not existed before and it is always dangerous when we start going down that route of bringing in new protocols specifically to deal with the challenges of sexual assault that we have here.
I plead with those on the Front Bench: the issue of the female experience in the military defines what we do. I note that the response, last week, was to double the number of females in the military. The only problem is that we have already missed our target for doing that in the first place. It is pointless to give strongly worded statements to the chiefs or to say that we are going to double the numbers if so many people—the young women we saw in the work from my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham—simply do not come forward because they do not think they are going to have any fairness, any rigour or any real prospect of a conviction for their horrendous experience.
Members will find no one prouder of the military in this place than me but there is a singular problem. I do not buy this stuff about a culture problem—I am afraid I am on the other side of the fence on that: the military is the most wonderful life-chances machine this country has—but there is a problem with holding our people to account, whether in respect of lawfare or other issues. It is exactly the same here. If we do that and hold our people to account, we will get on top of this problem without losing good people like my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham, whose work I commend. I am incredibly proud of her; the Government should be as well and should implement all her recommendations.

Carol Monaghan: It was certainly interesting to listen to the contribution from the former Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer).
Over the past year, personnel have supported the vaccine roll-out, transported petrol to petrol stations and, most recently, aided those impacted by Storm Arwen. Overseas, members of our armed forces have put their lives on the line to evacuate those at risk in Afghanistan and are actively engaged in operations ranging from peacekeeping to combatting the international drugs trade. Our personnel are our greatest armed forces asset and we must do our best to ensure that any legislation that impacts the lives of serving personnel is evidence based, carefully considered and ultimately beneficial.
This Bill has presented a once-in-a-decade chance to improve treatment and conditions for serving personnel and their loved ones while also implementing desperately needed reforms to the service justice system, which is currently failing to deliver for many victims. Sadly, despite the efforts of those in the other place, the  Bill is lacking in ambition and many of its provisions are tokenistic.
Lords amendment 1, which we will be supporting, removes the military from the handling of the most serious of crimes. Very recently, the Defence Secretary held a meeting with senior members of the Army to discuss allegations of sexual violence by members of the armed forces. This came after the Defence Committee report on women in the armed forces, which exposed the culture of sexism, intimidation and secrecy within the armed forces and the flawed systems that allow serious acts of misconduct to go unchallenged. Some 64% of the more than 4,000 servicewomen who submitted evidence to the report stated that they had experienced sexual harassment, rape, bullying or discrimination. That figure should cause all of us great discomfort.
Last week, the MOD’s response to the women in the armed forces report announced the introduction of new measures, including sexual consent training and the doubling of the number of female personnel. However, it is hard to see, with the current laddish culture that is being promoted, how women will be encouraged or attracted to join. More ambitious and swifter action is required.
Lords amendment 1 to clause 7 requires a protocol between the Director of Service Prosecutions and the Director of Public Prosecutions. It would create a presumption that serious charges against serving personnel would be heard in civilian courts. There is good reason for this. In the five years until 2019, rape conviction rates in civilian courts were approximately 59% compared with the shockingly low 9% of those heard in military courts. The chances of seeing justice are “shockingly low”, according to the Victims’ Commissioner. We heard this evening from the Minister that the reason why these would continue to be held in military courts is that they could be held swiftly; it was for the welfare of the victims.
I would like to hear from those victims whether they think that their welfare is being looked after by the current system. The majority of these cases are currently prosecuted through court martial, where the boards have a largely, if not entirely, male majority who cannot possibly understand the lived experience of women. The Government have stated that female representation must be on the court martial board, but no quotas have been specified, so it is questionable whether this will make any difference.
Within the military, there is evidence of poor victim care and poor investigations, as military police have little experience of complex sexual violence cases. The evidence backing the amendment is clear: for justice to be delivered, these offences must be tried in civilian courts, as these courts have experience of dealing with complex cases, particularly in relation to rape and sexual assault.
The provisions within Lords amendment 1 are also recommended by the Lyons review and the Defence Committee report, which contended that
“service personnel remain citizens and in these serious cases when the civil courts are available to them, they should be tried in that forum.”
This move also has the backing of the Victims’ Commissioner, a former chief constable and, most importantly, many serving personnel and veterans.
Lords amendment 2, which we support, would require the Secretary of State to have due regard to the covenant. The Bill, as introduced, largely applies to local government. The UK Government should be subject to the same legal standard on the covenant that they are seeking to apply in the devolved context and to local councils. We know that many areas of policy in which serving personnel, veterans and their families face disadvantage—forces’ housing, pensions and employment to name but a few—are the direct responsibility of the UK Government. Disappointingly, many live issues are entirely ignored by the Bill, including: Commonwealth veteran immigration; justice for LGBT veterans; and forces’ housing, which continues to cause major issues for personnel.
We will continue to work with the Minister to ensure that we get the best possible outcome for serving personnel and veterans, but, sadly, I do not think that this Bill is a vehicle through which we will do it.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. We do not have very long left, so I am hoping that Members will take only five minutes in order to allow everybody to say something.

Bob Neill: May I make a few very short points to amplify those things that I mentioned in the course of interventions?
Overall, this is a very good Bill. I respect and entirely accept the good intentions of Ministers in that regard, which is why I am saddened that, in relation to Lords amendment 1 in particular, we are in danger of undoing some of the good. We are in danger of damaging the reputation of a good Bill by what appears to be a degree of stubbornness. I do not blame the Minister personally for that; he has been most generous in his interventions. None the less, taking on board the evidence of the Lyons review and also of Sir Richard Henriques, lawyers whom I respect very greatly indeed, I cannot help but feel that the Government have failed to achieve a compromise that ought more readily to be available. I urge them to consider that in the time between the Bill’s leaving this House, if they have a majority tonight, and its going back to the other place.
For example, let us look at Lords amendment 1 in particular. It is pretty clear that, with the best will in the world, the service prosecution system, precisely because of the small numbers that go through it, will struggle ever to have the level of expertise required to deal with what in the civilian world would be regarded as RASSO—rape and serious sexual offences—cases. The CPS has specialist Crown prosecutors and specialist counsel. Cases are tried by ticketed circuit or High Court judges, who are specifically authorised to try cases of such gravity, where particular sensitivity is required with witnesses. The criminal procedure rules have a host of safeguards—both before and in the course of a trial—to ensure that complainants in the system are treated with the sensitivity that the nature of such a case should involve.
It might have been easier to sustain the position on Lords amendment 1 if we were simply talking in terms of murder and manslaughter, but even that would be stretching it. The inclusion of the rape and serious sexual offences element seems needless and not really supported  by the evidence. The Henriques argument will be stronger on the murder/manslaughter point, if there be any. I hope that Ministers will think about that again before the Bill goes back to the other place.
As we update criminal procedure—reference has already been made to section 28 and pre-recorded cross-examination —all those things require advocates on the prosecution side, investigators on the prosecution side, advocates on the defence side and tribunals highly experienced in these matters, and swift and prompt listing. I take the Minister’s point about concerns with delay, postings and so on, but in truth those issues apply in the civil courts as well. The answer is to have those cases expedited, rather than to take them out of the system; I hope that he will think about that.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) made an interesting observation about the jurisdictional position in relation to the Attorney General. I accept that that is a novel point, and perhaps it has some force that we have not debated enough. The answer, surely, rather than reject this amendment out of hand, is to seek a compromise, perhaps beefing up the protocol, in which the Director of Public Prosecutions has, in effect, a determinative role. Perhaps we could look at that as a model, rather than putting a Law Officer of the Crown into that unusual jurisdictional position. That ought to be done between now and the Bill’s return to the other place. I urge Ministers to think again on those important issues.
Let me turn to Lords amendment 2. I would hope that we could at least have a commitment that if the noble Lord Mackay’s amendment is not the vehicle through which to do it, the Government have a means of putting into law—either through this Bill or elsewhere—a commitment in law, as well as morally and ethically, towards the covenant. We all know that we all do have that commitment, but it would be a shame again to spoil the ship for a ha’p’orth of tar. I hope that Ministers will reflect on that.
I have had no involvement with the Bill before. I look at it simply as someone who has spent the whole of his life in the criminal justice system, both prosecuting and defending, including in courts martial as well as in civilian courts. I hope that those suggestions are constructive and might help us to find a way forward that can make an excellent Bill—one that leaves both Houses with a greater degree of consensus than we currently have on two difficult points.

Eleanor Laing: Four minutes each. I call Matt Rodda.

Matt Rodda: It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill).
We have covered a wide range of welfare issues tonight. I want to highlight one in particular, which has great resonance in my constituency of Reading East and, I believe, in the Minister’s constituency of Aldershot: the case of Gurkha soldiers who retired before 1997. As many Members will know, the Gurkhas have served our country with distinction over more than 200 years. However, soldiers who retired before 1997 receive very modest pensions—far smaller than those of other British soldiers. Many veterans live in my constituency and manage to exist on a very small income in a high-cost  part of the country, and that experience is common across parts of west London, Hampshire and other areas close to their regimental base in north Hampshire.
This unfair treatment has led to a determined campaign by both Gurkha veterans and other former British soldiers to make good this wrong. Sadly, in the last few months this led to a number of Gurkhas going on hunger strike. I visited the hunger strikers as they took their action outside No. 10, which was a very moving experience. I pay tribute to them, and to the others who have supported their campaign. I appreciate that the Minister, and indeed the Secretary of State, have now intervened and responded to the Gurkhas’ concerns and that they are about to have discussions with the Government of Nepal. I welcome that. I support the Minister’s work on this and look forward to a better outcome. However, I remind him that this issue has been dragging on for some time—some years, indeed—and for many of the families involved this is a very difficult time. Prices are rising. Many families are living on very modest incomes, as I said, often in relatively high-cost-of-living parts of the country, and we should be doing so much more for them. They are a wonderful part of our armed forces and have given such great and noble service to this country.
I urge the Minister to do everything he can to look into this case and to speed up the discussions with Nepal. I appreciate that the Nepalese have appointed a new ambassador and that has led to some further delays, but I urge the Minister to try to expedite this important matter. I realise that it is difficult and will take time, but we would very much appreciate his full attention on it. Will he update the House when he comes to the Dispatch Box and also write to me with an update? There is a great deal resting on this for many local people in my constituency, and they would very much appreciate a word of reassurance from him.

Margaret Ferrier: I will speak to Lords amendments 2 to 13.
In principle, I welcome the Bill, which will strengthen the legal basis for the armed forces covenant. The covenant represents a series of promises to the armed forces community—servicemen and women, reservists, veterans, and their families. The covenant covers a number of areas the community might need support in, such as housing, education and, vitally, healthcare. Most are devolved policy issues in Scotland and held at local level by councils and health boards. I have personally turned to the covenant when dealing with casework; I am sure many of us have. It is not necessarily easy to navigate, because responsibility for the things it covers is held in so many different places.
Lords amendment 2 to clause 8 would go some way to addressing that. It includes the Secretary of State in the list of specified persons within the scope of the covenant’s duty of due regard. Without this amendment, due regard will largely sit at local authority level, with no overarching duty placed on national Government. The amendment has been called for and supported by charities such as the Royal British Legion and Poppyscotland, which work with the very people the covenant seeks to support. They are perhaps best placed to tell us what is needed to make the covenant work  in the way it should. The Royal British Legion and  Poppyscotland say that in their experience the responsibility for the most prevalent issues faced by the armed forces community does sit at a national level.
I know from personal experience of helping veterans in my constituency that while healthcare definitely sits right at the top of the list of concerns, there are others that are just as important but reserved to the UK Government—for example, pensions. In one case, it took months of chasing, and my constituent had spent a year on it before reaching out to me, before satisfactory progress was made. I thank the Minister for the help that he gave in that case.
In summary, the covenant is an important tool if it is given the legal basis it needs in order to work in the way it should. The amendment moves us closer in the right direction by ensuring that responsibility for national issues is held at a national level. Consistency is key.

Kevan Jones: I rise as a supporter of the military justice system. The problem here is the idea that anyone seen to be supporting amendment 1 is somehow against the military justice system. Well, I am not. I have served on every single Armed Forces Bill Committee, as a Minister or Back Bencher, for the last 20 years, and I firmly recognise its importance.
However, the important thing is that we need to put the victim at the heart of the system, as Professor Sir Jon Murphy said in his evidence to the Select Committee, and that is not necessarily always the case in the military system. We had evidence from the Victims Commissioner and from retired Lieutenant Colonel Diane Allen, who also raised the role of the chain of command and the complaints system in stopping the number of complaints coming forward. This has got to take place, and I support Lords amendment 1, because we need to send a signal to young men and women in our armed forces that if they are a victim of serious sexual assault, for example, it will be taken seriously and be dealt with on par with what would be done in the civilian world.
I welcome the setting up of the serious crime unit, but I agree with the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill). I am not sure it will have the volume of work to get the expertise that is needed. Reference has been made to the hon. Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) and her report, which I worked on as a member of the Select Committee. It is loud and clear: people are not coming forward with complaints, because they do not feel that the system is fair. If we back Lords amendment 1, it will send a clear signal.
As for the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), he is a bit like a lead actor in a play who seems to have been sat in the audience for the entire time during the play, because when he was in Committee, all he did was parrot the lines that were in front of him—if he could find the right page to turn to. I am sorry, but some of us will not take this nonsense, trying to rewrite history about his ineffective role as a Minister.
I also support Lords amendment 2. When I was Veterans Minister, I produced the Green Paper, which was the forerunner for how we got the welfare pathway into law. One thing was clear: Departments should be part of welfare, which surrounds the covenant, because increasingly the services are directly influenced by  Departments. Housing in the armed forces is an obvious one, but health and others are increasingly involved. I therefore support amendment 2. The other thing about amendment 2 is that with this Bill we are putting the onus again on local government without any extra resources to carry those functions out.
Finally, I make one point to the Minister. One of the issues around speedy outcomes for justice in our military system has to be speedy investigations. It is an issue that I raised, and I know that Lord Thomas of Gresford raised it in the other place. I raised it in Committee. The Minister made some commitments to look at it, and I would be interested to hear what he has to say.
One hour having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments, the debate was interrupted (Programme Order, this day).
The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83F), That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

The House divided: Ayes 302, Noes 221.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 1 disagreed to.
More than one hour having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments, the proceedings were interrupted (Programme Order, this day).
The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83F).

Clause 8 - Armed Forces Covenant

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 2.—(Leo Docherty.)

The House divided: Ayes 305, Noes 215.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 2 disagreed to.
Lords amendments 3 to 50 agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments 1 and 2.
That Leo Docherty, Alan Mak, James Sunderland, Suzanne Webb, Stephen Morgan, Liz Twist and Carol Monaghan be members of the Committee;
That Leo Docherty be the Chair of the Committee;
That three be the quorum of the Committee;
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Steve Double.)
Question agreed to.
Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

Dormant Assets Bill [Lords]

Second Reading

John Glen: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Over the past decade, the dormant assets scheme has released more than £800 million to tackle systemic social challenges and to support the communities that need help most. This Bill is estimated to unlock £880 million of additional funding to ensure that the dormant assets scheme can continue to support innovative, long-term programmes addressing some of our most pressing social and environmental challenges. The scheme is led by industry and backed by the Government. Its aim is to reunite owners with their financial assets; where that is not possible, the money supports vital social and environmental initiatives across the UK.
Consumer protection is at the heart of the scheme. Dormant assets remain the property of their owners, who can reclaim any money owed to them in full at any time. However, only a small percentage do so, meaning that the rest of the money lies dormant. The scheme responds to the imperative to put the money to better use.
The Bill marks the completion of a five-year review in collaboration with industry leaders, including an independent commission and a public consultation. The scheme’s success is down in no small part to the commitment and drive of the banks and building societies that have led the charge on unlocking dormant assets for the public good. However, it is only right that the scheme continues to grow and evolve.
Currently, only assets from dormant bank or building society accounts are eligible to be transferred into the dormant assets scheme. The Bill will enable Reclaim Fund Ltd, the scheme’s administrator, to accept a broader range of asset classes in the sectors of insurance and pensions, investment and wealth management, and securities. Of course, there could be even more dormant assets to unlock in future. The Bill will therefore introduce a new power to provide the flexibility to expand the scheme through regulations.
I stress that the four core principles that underpin the scheme—voluntary participation, reunification first, full restitution and the additionality principle—will remain unchanged by the Bill. The Bill will require the Secretary of State to
“carry out periodic reviews of…the operation of the dormant assets scheme and…any use made of the powers”
to extend the scheme.

Jim Shannon: There are many worthwhile projects that local communities would like to bring forward. How can they feel that they are part of this project and gain advantage from dormant bank accounts?

John Glen: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. There will be a consultation; I or the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston), will come to it later.
The Bill makes provision to reflect Reclaim Fund Ltd’s establishment as a Treasury non-departmental public body and names it as the scheme’s only authorised  reclaim fund. In addition, the Bill includes a new power for the Treasury to designate additional authorised reclaim funds in future. To guarantee consumer protection, the Bill’s money resolution will enable the Government to cover the liability, in the form of a loan, for reclaims should any authorised reclaim fund face insolvency.
The Bill will amend the approach to distributing dormant assets funding in England, aligning it with the model used in the devolved Administrations, who have powers to focus funding through secondary legislation, provided that it is within the parameters of social or environmental purpose. In England, the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Act 2008 restricts the English portion of funding to youth financial inclusion and social investment. The Bill will enable the current restrictions to be removed from primary legislation and put into secondary legislation so that the scheme can respond to changing needs over time. The Bill will require the Secretary of State, before making an order, to publicly consult on the social and environmental focus of the English portion of funds. No changes to the existing restrictions can be made until and unless a new order is laid.
After 10 years of operation, it is right that we carefully consider how the scheme can deliver the greatest impact once it has been expanded.

Julian Knight: With the expansion in the amount of money and the number of areas subject to the scheme, there is a danger that we could end up swamping the economy in those areas. We therefore need to broaden out the scope of the good causes towards which the scheme can work.

John Glen: I thank my hon. Friend for that point—a legitimate point that will be raised in different ways across the country during the consultation, and one on which the Secretary of State will need to reflect in due course before an order is laid.
It is vital that we afford everyone a fair and open opportunity to have their say, so the Government plan to launch the first public consultation, which will last for at least 12 weeks after the Bill receives Royal Assent. Until we have launched the consultation and fully considered the responses, the Government are not prepared to make decisions or commitments on the ways in which future funds will be used in England. To do so would clearly undermine the validity and transparency of the consultation exercise.

Kevin Hollinrake: Under the current legislation—the Charities Act 2011—urban regeneration is one of the areas that distributions are allowed to go into, but it is not clear whether they can go to, for example, a regional mutual bank. As my hon. Friend knows, the all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking is strongly in favour of that. Could the point be clarified in the Bill to facilitate a quicker move to fund those regional mutuals?

John Glen: In short, no; that will not feature on the face of the Bill. However, my hon. Friend is a doughty advocate for that cause, and I am sure he will make a hearty contribution to the consultation which will inform the Government’s response in respect of those future parameters.
Mindful of time and the need for contributions from so many Members on both sides of the House, I will end by reiterating that the Government are committed to supporting industry efforts to reunite more owners with lost money, and to provide a practical way for unclaimed and unwanted funds to be put to good use. The dormant assets scheme has achieved that, and we are determined to ensure that it continues to be a success. I hope that the Bill will command cross-party support this evening, and that we will be able to work together on expanding the scheme to unlock hundreds of millions of pounds more for good causes throughout the country in the years to come. I commend the Bill to the House.

Rachael Maskell: In 2008, Labour set out a new principle in the House: to put dormant assets from bank and building society accounts to work, first by trying to reunite owners with their accounts but then, when connections failed to materialise, by moving assets to address social and environmental good causes. Labour’s vision has since released nearly £8 million to infrastructure bodies which, in turn, have multiplied the investment and expanded the work of civil society. I continue to argue that the pounds spent by civil society organisations stretch much further than those spent elsewhere in the economy.
This is a success to celebrate, but the last two years have been tough. As the sector's campaign slogan in response to the pandemic says, charities have been “#NeverMoreNeeded”. Demand went up and funding down as shops were shut and fundraising dried up. That is why this legislation is really “never more needed”, but it also furthers Labour’s ambition to introduce other assets into the reclaim fund, now that the principle has been established and the scheme has proved successful.
The three-year review should have taken place a decade ago, and the legislation before us today should have already released millions of pounds. If it had, the sector might have survived the last two years more securely rather than ending up where it is today. Today we are urging the Government to press on while also ensuring that the Bill is in good shape.
Charities have been tested throughout the last decade as the state failed to give the sector the back-up that it needed. Charities and Labour have shared values and a shared sense of purpose. We want to do all we can to transform our society, and that is why we value charities so highly. Bursting with dedication and expertise, civil society really is the heartbeat of all our communities.

Danny Kruger: Does the hon. Lady acknowledge that the Government put more than £150 million into the charity sector last year, and does she think that that was welcome, not enough or too much?

Rachael Maskell: As I was going on to say, that money reached only 14,000 charities out of 169,000. As we see demand spiralling, we are seeing charities struggling. The Government could have been far more generous, as they have been to many other sectors during the pandemic.
Every organisation has had to reinvent itself, digging deeper into its reserves, borrowing where possible, and appealing to the ever-generous public for help. We saw charities and mutual aid groups spring up in every corner of every community. Where the state stopped, charities took their service ever more deeply into our communities. That is why this legislation really matters, and why Labour will support its passage through the Commons today. It arrives in a better state thanks to the extensive work undertaken in the other place, and I particularly thank Lord Bassam of Brighton for his skilful handling of it, to help it to reflect the priorities of civil society.
In looking at the detail of the Bill, we are pleased to see that the principles that Labour set out in 2008 remain, including that of reuniting assets with their owners through extensive tracing processes and ensuring that the owner will always be able to claim the value of their asset in full if they seek to do so. The principle of this being a voluntary scheme will remain, whereby participants can opt in, and I encourage everyone to do so. When dormant assets have been through thorough tracing processes, the asset then transfers to the reclaim fund, which is responsible for any reclaim that might occur, moving surplus into the hands of identified organisations. Labour is most grateful to Big Society Capital, Access, the Youth Futures Foundation and Fair4All Finance for the way in which they have multiplied the value of these assets and invested them wisely to help people in our communities. Likewise, we are grateful to organisations in the devolved countries.
Part 1 of the Bill expands the opportunity for the inclusion of other financial dormant assets. The consultations to get to this point have been thorough, and each new product carries its own racing mechanisms and timescales to reduce risk. We welcome the inclusion of all the named assets, but I want to press the Minister further on pension schemes. While there is some inclusion, I know that he is making the case that until the pensions dashboard has been thoroughly tested, he is reluctant to expand in this area. I appreciate that there has been significant delay in the introduction of the dashboard, which has caused the Government significant embarrassment. This delay is denying good causes the assets that they want to put to work.
Perhaps the Minister could set out a timeline for further widening the scheme to these kinds of products. It would be good to hear from him what other assets he is considering for later inclusion, whether they are direct cash or non-cash assets. Charities cannot wait to benefit, and nor can the public. The powerful testimonies from current beneficiaries demand that the Government seek to expand. I know that the Second Reading of the Bill in the other place raised many helpful suggestions as to how that could happen. Wherever funds can be identified, Labour wants to see them put to work for social and environmental good causes.
Part 2 of the Bill focuses on a number of themes, the first of which is the reclaim fund. Moving it under the auspices of the Treasury is a positive move, placing it independently but with lines into the Treasury. However, it is Labour’s consideration that, 13 years since the scheme’s passage through this place, it should be reviewed. Each reclaim product should be assessed separately according to the levels of real risk to the reclaim fund. If data from the first phase is observed, the scheme  could be more generous in its support to beneficiaries. The sector agrees with that. A regular review would also help to identify any risk in the scheme. The Government will now be responsible for underwriting any deficit that might occur with a loan to the scheme, but it is far better to avoid such risk in the first place. My broader question is therefore: is the balance right?
Before I address the matter of where the money is spent, I also want to raise the question of the next stage of the Bill. After such detailed consultation over many years, we need to ensure that there is no further significant delay in preparing and instituting secondary legislation. Labour wants to see this process commence on the heels of this legislation, for it to be thorough and allow sufficient time for response and for it then to be expedited through secondary legislation.
I am most grateful for the addition of clause 29 to this legislation. It was added on Report in the other place and it highlights a deficiency in the distribution of the reclaim fund. That is impeding civil society from thriving across many communities and impeding the social levelling-up agenda. Imagine doing a jigsaw and finding one piece missing: it mars the whole picture. The reconstruction of civil society is the same. All the schemes need to be in place, but the exemption of the community wealth fund has meant that whole swathes of communities have been robbed of the opportunity to build the very partnerships that could tackle the deepest of challenges.
In my own constituency, we have a thriving and growing voluntary sector under the superb leadership of York CVS. However, we have areas of real deep entrenched deprivation. Tang Hall Big Local, a local trust, has now developed micro-level infrastructure to start tackling social injustice in the Tang Hall area. It is utterly amazing to see the multi-agency approach and the multiple offers, alongside community engagement—225 such areas have been mapped out.
Imagine areas where there is no thriving CVS or a well-developed civil society sector, on which the new integrated care systems in the Health and Care Bill depend. Imagine this loss in the most deprived and challenged areas, as they often are. The amazing things that charities do just would not happen; the vital partnerships and social infrastructure would not be built. This is at the core of what the community wealth fund does. It empowers communities to develop the partnerships needed to transform themselves. Its inclusion will mean greater equality, which is surely what levelling up is all about.
That is why the inclusion of the community wealth fund in the Bill to build social infrastructure is so vital. The principles of the Bill and the 2008 Act are too broad to provide such a framework without clause 29, and the principle needs to be framed in primary legislation. Without it the funds could go elsewhere and will not meet the ambition that I trust the Government share with Labour.
The Government do not need further pilots, as there are 150 projects at various stages of development. Those projects have been evaluated and will continue to prove their value. When it comes to the civil society sector, the Government always seem to have the knack of overcomplicating things and missing the opportunity it presents. If they really wanted to build back better, they would have poured investment into community wealth  funds and seized this moment to bring about social transformation. That is why Labour has pushed so hard so see it included in the Bill, and the Lords supported it. I trust for the sake of its impact that the Government will not lose the opportunity to reaffirm the principle of a community wealth fund in primary legislation to complete that picture.
In closing, I put on the record my thanks to the thousands of organisations that have shown their support for taking the reclaim fund forward, and to the participants in the dormant assets scheme to date for their co-operation and engagement. Across our communities, staff and volunteers are building civil society, fighting inequality and injustice, and supporting people with every need. Their contribution is outstanding and their support is utterly amazing. It gives us all such pride to reflect on all they do. Putting money to good work for them to multiply its benefits has always been a principle that Labour has advanced, and we will again throughout the passage of this Bill.

Julian Knight: I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on financial education for young people. Several key supporters of the APPG have benefited from the dormant assets scheme, in which I know my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury takes a keen interest. His has often been a lone voice in the wilderness when it comes to financial education for young people, and we are grateful for his support.
It would be fair to say that the current dormant assets scheme has far exceeded expectations since the passage of the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Act 2008. I was a financial journalist at the time, and I well remember that it was seen as revolutionary but relatively small-scale—a staging post. The then Government thought it would raise about £400 million, but it has raised £800 million. I also remember that there were a lot of questions about exactly how it would be brought about, how fair it would be and whether people would get their money back.
There were also questions about whether people would find their money was just taken, whether it would be an example of the state effectively piling into people’s lives, but we have seen a huge amount of fairness. No one can complain—even those from 1864 who lost money from their National Savings and Investments account have not come forward to say they have been mistreated in that respect.
I have seen in my constituency the huge amount of good this scheme has done. Ordinary Magic, a group based in Shirley, received £60,000 through the fund this year, and it is providing support to local children—we know from the tragic events this weekend exactly how welcome this is in my community—who are suffering from mental health conditions by providing psycho-education workshops to teach parents how to enable their children to get through these difficult times and difficult situations. It also provides personal, social, health and economic education sessions in schools, enrichment holiday clubs and breaks for children and carers, which is hugely important.
As Chair of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, I believe it is incredibly important for our young people, particularly those living among some of  our most deprived communities, to have access to the performing arts. I make reference to the Citizens Theatre, based in Glasgow, which is fantastic in its outreach. I know for a fact that it goes out into the local community; I believe it even tries to recruit young actors in chicken shops, cafés and other such places. The distribution of the dormant assets scheme is therefore providing enrichment experiences that young people in Glasgow need to expand their confidence and explore their identities through the stage. That would not be the case had it not been for this legislation, which has cross-party support.
However, I believe we have a major disparity in the existing system, whereby the devolved Administrations have more flexibility in how the dormant assets funding is distributed in comparison with England, where the funding is restricted to groups promoting financial inclusion—obviously, I have an interest in those—and social investment. While financial inclusion and social investment charities both do important work, it is only right that we widen our funding distribution here in England as well.
That is why I support the Bill before the House. Under this legislation, the Government will be in a position to increase the flexibility on how funding is allocated over time. As they see the money come in, they will be able to suit the distribution of those funds accordingly and be able to bring about real change. That is to be done through amending the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Act 2008, allowing the Government to set out additional clauses through secondary legislation. It will thus be subject to a departmental consultation in the public domain, which is important, and will need the support of hon. Members through parliamentary approval, as per usual.
Supporting this change by approving the legislation before us will allow the Government to bring themselves in line with our devolved Administrations, so they can set their distribution priorities through secondary legislation. According to the Association of British Insurers, which I understand is backing the Bill, it is estimated that £2.1 billion currently sits in dormant insurance and pension products. Let us just think of the life-affirming, life-changing effects that that £2.1 billion, if correctly and safely distributed with the right to reclaim, could have on our communities across the country.
I concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) in his ambition for community banks. I also place on the record my thanks to those within banking and financial services who work tirelessly year in, year out to reconnect dormant assets with their customers. They really do not give up—even with the case in 1864 with National Savings & Investments, they are probably still writing letters. Indeed, I know the sector invests millions each year in reuniting customers with their money. However, despite some of their best efforts to reconnect dormant assets with the customer, sometimes we know it is simply not possible. That said, with the greater move to online banking, customers should be in a far better position to keep track of their finances and securities.
Finally, it is welcome that, following the Government’s public consultation in July 2020, the existing scheme will be expanded to include assets from the insurance, pensions, investments, wealth management and securities  sectors. This step will pump even more funding into the dormant assets scheme, in turn supporting some of the most innovative and inspiring work in the third sector.
As the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) stated, we know the charity sector has had an incredibly difficult pandemic; £750 million was hugely welcome, but the total shortfall across the sector was £4 billion. Let us hope that some of the redirected resources from this scheme can go towards that third sector, to ensure that they can continue the work they do.

John Nicolson: We in the Scottish National party welcome the Bill and the expansion of the dormant assets scheme. The extra £880 million now available as a result is very welcome, especially in what is an extremely difficult time for so many up and down the country. Already the scheme has delivered £745 million for social and environmental initiatives. By expanding the current list of assets that qualify for the scheme, up to £1.7 billion more could be made available.
The Minister will doubtless be aware of the remarks made in the other place about the Bill. Peers wanted clarity on its potential costs and more detailed impact assessments of the expanded scheme. Baroness Barker specifically warned that such details are important so that the scheme does not become a
“piggyback fund for government when times are tough.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 May 2021; Vol. 812, c. 1039.]
Perhaps the Minister can assuage her concerns and give us the detail that she asked for.
It is good to see that the Bill makes some changes to distribution in England; the Secretary of State will have more freedom to spread assets through secondary legislation, thus allowing England to catch up with Scotland and the other devolved nations. As Lord Triesman pointed out in the other place, the example set by the devolved nations through their innovative thinking about how to spend the funds allotted to them provided the impetus for the expansion of the scheme in England through this Bill.
The pandemic has shown that the needs of the population can change dramatically and suddenly. Flexibility in secondary legislation is a useful tool to deal with such change, but we must also ensure adequate consultation and scrutiny. We welcome the requirement for the Secretary of State to launch a public consultation and to consult the National Lottery Community Fund before replacing or changing an order. However, it may also be desirable to expand such consultation beyond that fund and to include the devolved Ministers responsible for spending in their nations and representatives of the voluntary and social enterprise sectors.
It is reassuring that the expanded scheme will focus on reuniting owners with their assets. With the expanded range of qualifying products, it is estimated that £3.7 billion-worth of financial assets lie dormant. With the elderly and vulnerable—especially those without digital skills—among those most likely to lose access or connection to their accounts in an increasingly digitised world, such efforts are vital. That is why we on the SNP Benches welcome the enhanced tracing and verification measures that could lead to the reclamation of as much as £2 billion.
The Bill should be effective, but if we could get clarity from the Minister on some of the points raised here and in the other place, it would be much appreciated.

Kevin Hollinrake: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I am supportive of the Bill and the widening of the jurisdiction of the legislation.
As I said in an earlier intervention, my brief remarks will be centred on community banks, which, as both Ministers on the Front Bench—my hon. Friends the Economic Secretary to the Treasury and the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston)—know, the all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking believes are at the heart of social purpose. Indeed, the APPG’s recent “Scale up to level up” report makes the case for regional mutual banks and community development financial institutions, which could—and in the case of CDFIs do—play an important role in fairness, making sure that we level up properly, and in regional distribution in terms of regional recovery.
Let us look at how regional mutual banks worked in Germany after the most recent financial crisis. In the five-year period between 2008 and 2013, UK commercial banks withdrew financing to small and medium-sized enterprises by around 25%, whereas in the same period co-operative and community banks in Germany increased lending to SMEs by 20%. That was an incredibly important time for SMEs—they need funding to get through crises of that kind—and co-operative and community banks take a different approach to lending. Commercial banks are important in the UK but regional mutual banks could play an important role by getting patient capital to where it is really needed, which is to SMEs and the productive economy.
Regional mutual banks are not just a feature of Germany, and this is not just a romantic ideal; they are very much part of every G7 economy, with the US, Germany and Japan being examples of where they work very effectively. They are not currently part of the UK banking sector—they used to be—but the APPG sees them as crucial to levelling up because they can have a genuine regional focus.
Similarly, there are some very good examples of CDFIs. A business enterprise fund in Bradford, Yorkshire, is key to making sure that people who are financially excluded are financially included. Regional mutuals are full-service banks. CDFIs are not full-service banks, but they make sure that people on low incomes are properly banked, which again works very much on a relationship-based approach. They also lend quite significantly to small and medium-sized enterprises.
There are 50 CDFIs around the country. They rely very much on grants and loans rather than getting money from the markets, so it is incredibly important that they see more funds going into them. I see this as a real opportunity for some of our less well-off communities to thrive in the future. These organisations are sector-based, making sure, for example, that people from black, Asian and minority ethnic communities and women are properly supported.
One very good example of how CDFIs work is Prima Bakeries in Cornwall, which is featured in our report, “Scale Up to Level Up”. At the time, the business had  19 employees. It was refused banking from its high street bank, so it went to its local CDFI, South West Investment Group, which lent it the money it needed to get through. It now has 96 people employed in that organisation. That shows how CFDIs take a different, relationship-based approach, rather than simply looking at the pure numbers, which the big banks tend to do.
It would be very simple for us to try to expand the current legislation—I take on board my hon. Friend the Minister’s comments about going through a consultation. The difficulty with consultations is the time that they take. I know that it is a 12-week consultation, but this kind of stuff might take months or years to implement. It is quite clear from section 3(2)(c) of the Charities Act 2011 that urban regeneration is an area that qualifies for the distribution of dormant assets, but the people who distribute them, Big Society Capital and Fair4All Finance, currently think that regional mutuals and CDFIs do not qualify for those funds.
If we could put something into the legislation, a simple clarification rather than a wider consultation, on the basis that these sectors could be funded through dormant assets—I know that there will lots of different people trying to pitch for all kinds of different things—it would mean money going to those organisations much more quickly. If they are key to levelling up, which I absolutely believe they are, it would be good to see that consultation. We are looking for about £100 million to pump-prime these organisations with this funding. I will table an amendment to the legislation to discuss this at a later stage, because it would be better to expedite this issue than wait for a long-term consultation. No doubt we will have more time to discuss that at a later stage.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: We have very little time left, so I must ask for very short speeches, please.

Rushanara Ali: May I start by declaring an interest as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on philanthropy and social investment and also chair of a national charity that has benefited from dormant assets funding, as well as the many organisations that the all-party group represents?
Since the last Labour Government introduced the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Act 2008, with cross-party support, more than £800 million has been distributed to good causes. The four organisations that have been involved with the distribution—Big Society Capital, Fair4All Finance, Youth Futures Foundation and Access, the Foundation for Social Investment—have a proven track record and an evidence-based approach to investment and support to charities and social enterprises across the country.
It is vital that this Bill builds on the work and the evidence underpinning the allocation of funding. It is also vital that we look at some of the things that these organisations have achieved. Big Society Capital alone has used the £425 million of dormant assets to bring in another additional £2.5 billion of social investment from other investors, so it is vital that we ensure that that is built on and that there is not a power grab by Ministers to allocate funding to their favoured causes.  I hope that the Minister will assure us that the consultation will be meaningful and not an attempt to take away the proper accountability, scrutiny and good governance that underpins the current allocation of funding, through these agencies, to good causes in our constituencies up and down the country.
Since 2019, the Youth Futures Foundation, which has a fund of £90 million, has started to allocate funding to young people. I have seen how the charity that I chair has benefited; 70% of the beneficiaries are from working-class and ethnic minority backgrounds in different parts of the country. Many other organisations up and down the country are also doing really great work with young people. Youth Futures Foundation has distributed nearly £19 million to 143 civil society organisations engaging about 18,000 people during the pandemic, and there is much more to do for those who face disadvantage and discrimination. As I have said, the work of Big Society Capital has meant that organisations have been able to build a social economy in their areas, which has had benefits in a wide range of fields such as tackling homelessness and building new social businesses across the country.
Let us build on the achievements reached under the last Labour Government and the cross-party consensus that has underpinned the work of these multiple organisations. I hope that the Government will ensure that lessons are learnt from the scandal of the towns fund. There have been big concerns about funding being allocated when Ministers have more control over it and there is less accountability; funding must not be dictated by political favouritism. Likewise, we hear the scandals of the personal protective equipment contracts, with separate pathways for those who have close connections with the ruling party. We must ensure that we do not fall into those traps, because there is a great deal of cross-party consensus on supporting organisations in our constituencies up and down the country.
During the pandemic, we have seen how vital it is to support charities. I have been fortunate to be able to work with colleagues in the Conservative party, as well as Liberal Democrats, SNP Members and others, through my all-party parliamentary group. I hope that Ministers will take heed of the representation that has been made and ensure that, rather than the duty to consult just being paid lip service to, there is proper protection and good governance in the future allocation of the dormant assets funds, and that they do not just dish out money to their pet causes, dictated by political considerations rather than what is in the interests of community organisations and charities across our constituencies and our country.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: We have less than 20 minutes left, so four minutes each please. I call Gareth Davies.

Gareth Davies: Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker; I will keep my remarks brief.
This fantastic Bill will unlock literally hundreds of millions of pounds to support communities and community businesses throughout the country. The Bill is clear about where the money is coming from, so let me talk briefly about where the money could go to. The Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Act 2008 unlocked funding to support our UK social investment sector, and I very much hope that this Bill will do the same. The UK social investment market has tremendous potential to transform communities up and down the country, and to support businesses that have a social benefit and charities that have specific, targeted interventions. While discussing this Bill, it is important that we reflect on the time since the 2008 Bill. In the brief time that I have, I will highlight three points.
First, as has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), in 2012 £425 million was taken from the dormant assets pool to form Big Society Capital, which was the world’s first social investment organisation. As she quite rightly pointed out, it has done significant and brilliant work to mobilise social investment capital, and has helped to fund a lot of businesses and charities around the country. However, it is important to point out, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) did, that it is constrained by the very specific, ringfenced scope of the legislation at the time, to the extent that its mandate has almost become overtly philanthropic. If we are really going to unleash the potential of social investment, it is vital that we look at the organisation’s scope to be able to invest in businesses that have a social impact and make money. Their financial track record over the past eight years shows that they have a made a loss in six of those years. If we spoke to the organisations themselves, they would agree that if they were given more freedom to invest across the country in different types of business, they could do a lot better.
My next point is on what are commonly known as social outcome contracts, which were first launched in 2011. These are highly complex, very illiquid and somewhat risky arrangements. We have had 87 launched in this country since 2011. They were billed as a way of mobilising billions of private capital. Unfortunately, they have only mobilised £73 million. I therefore urge caution on the Government ahead of proceeding with allocations in future to make sure that they are not investing in social outcome contracts that may not deliver what they say they will.
However, there is one area that I would encourage the Government to look at as part of their consultation, and that is to bolster our liquid, tradeable social bond funds and the market that is out there. These are issued by corporates and charities to ringfence capital that has a social impact. We are a genuine world leader in this. Last year there was $59 billion of issuance that could multiply quite exponentially given what has happened with green bonds. I encourage the Government to look at that in more detail.

Danny Kruger: The whole programme of dormant assets and the social investment that it has mobilised has been a great success story. I pay tribute to Sir Harvey McGrath, the outgoing chairman of Big Society Capital, and to his team; and also to Nick Hurd, formerly of this place, who chairs the Access foundation,  his colleague Seb Elsworth, and others there. They have done an absolutely tremendous job. Mobilising £8 billion of private money for £800 million of dormant assets is not bad.
I recognise the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Gareth Davies). The fact is that some programmes do fail. The whole point of investment is that they do not always work. We have to keep an eye on the overall returns that funds like this generate. However, there are some tremendous success stories, including in social outcome contracts. I declare an interest regarding the one I founded—the West London Zone for Children and Young People, which has leveraged public money through social outcome contracts very successfully, bringing in significant private investment and delivering great outcomes for young people.
I recognise that, as the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) said, it is not appropriate for us, as MPs or Ministers, to be dictating the objects for these sorts of funds. Nevertheless, I hope she will not mind if I make some suggestions of the sorts of projects that would be useful for this. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) is absolutely right that there is a massive gap in our finance sector in this country where we need small regional banks lending particularly to family businesses. That is absolutely crucial. If this money could support that, I would absolutely welcome it.
Then there is the opportunity for investment in personal debt projects. I particularly reference the suggestion by Fair4All Finance of creating a jubilee debt fund to tackle problem debt. We could do that. Community foundations and existing charities can and should be used as objects for significant capital injections. They distribute money very effectively to small local charities and causes.
Finally, there is the idea of a community wealth fund mentioned by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). I absolutely agree with her suggestion. I pay tribute to Matt Leach and Margaret Bolton of Local Trust, who seem to have got those on both sides of this House pretty much in their pocket when it comes to lobbying for this brilliant idea, which I endorse too. A community wealth fund could do all the things that we are describing to get money to all these projects, whether commercial, charitable or social enterprise. That is the sort of economy we need— a mixed economy that includes all these different and great innovations.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: I must try to leave time for the Minister; therefore two minutes will be just fine.

Kieran Mullan: I broadly welcome this legislation, as it expands a positive initiative. I understand the scheme is voluntary, and I would be interested to hear the Minister’s thinking on whether we could move towards a mandatory system for our larger institutions.
The focus of my remarks is on the use of the funds. As has been stated, today, the money can only be used for youth, financial inclusion or social investment in England. It has been helpful to have those priorities set  out in legislation. It gives certainty to funders and guaranteed income streams, so I am wary of the decision to strip it all the way back to consultation. I thank Ministers for the time they have taken to explain to me that the additionality principle is still in place and that the money must still be spent on social and environmental causes. That has given me some reassurance, but I wonder whether there is a halfway house we can reach, where we retain the new flexibility that the Minister would like to have for the Government, while perhaps having a focus on things such as geographical and deprivation-linked spending, so that we can tackle some of the challenges around levelling up at the same time.
I often find that the most deprived areas are the least able to put themselves forward to apply for funding. If there was some kind of linkage to that, it would be welcome. That is why I support some of the suggestions on a community wealth fund for the 225 most deprived or left-behind neighbourhoods in the country, one of which is Crewe St Barnabas in my constituency. I have seen at first-hand the deprivation challenges that that creates. Backing the community wealth fund, even if not through legislation, but in the consultation process later on, would send a powerful message to those wards and those parts of the country that the Government are serious about levelling up. I thank the Minister for his remarks.

Paul Howell: I will try to be as quick as I can. First, I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake); I agree with everything he said. Primarily, I want to speak to the proposal for the creation of the community wealth fund through the Bill. The Government have made it clear that levelling up is one of their top priorities. That has been demonstrated through the establishment of a Department, new funds for levelling up, the £200 million community renewal fund and so on. That is all very welcome, but it is only part of the story. Those things will not by themselves be sufficient to level up the most deprived or left-behind neighbourhoods. They are focused on shovel-ready physical infrastructure—an excellent starting point—but we should not forget that we also need to build the social capital needed to develop and sustain prosperity in left-behind neighbourhoods.
I agree with the Government that we need to invest in community-led infrastructure at the neighbourhood level to ensure that the levelling-up agenda is successful. A community wealth fund would complement existing initiatives by addressing the need to help communities develop and sustain the social infrastructure that is the lifeblood of strong communities, building social cohesion and laying the foundations for a strong local economy.
The community wealth fund, which would invest in the 225 most deprived or left-behind neighbourhoods in this country, would repair the social fabric in those communities where it is most frayed. That is the particular focus of the all-party parliamentary group that I jointly chair, and I thank everyone who contributes to it for increasing my motivation. We also need to consider how we deliver this fund and what we do, and I would like us to consider the idea of the late Jonathan Sacks that a social covenant, which is relational and human, is preferable to a social contract, which is transactional and bureaucratic. This Bill has the potential to further  strengthen families, communities and the nation, and I would like the Minister to consider that as a methodology for getting it there and letting us trust the people. I will explore that further in my ten-minute rule Bill on Wednesday.

Eleanor Laing: I thank the hon. Gentlemen for being really brief; that was totally brilliant.

Nigel Huddleston: I thank all hon. and right hon. Members for their valuable contributions in the debate today, many giving examples of the huge impact that dormant assets funding has had in their constituencies, and we see that right across the country. I am pleased that the Bill has such obvious support across the House and in the other place. It is clear that we all share the ambition to ensure the scheme’s continued success in unlocking dormant assets for public goods.
I would like to address some of the points raised today. Time will not allow me to give full details, and we will be debating the issues and details of this Bill in its later stages. I am also happy to discuss with colleagues across the House issues raised today ahead of the Committee stage, should there be an appetite to do so.
Members have raised a wide range of issues, in particular regarding future spend considerations. Clause 29, as mentioned by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), enables the Secretary of State to launch a public consultation on the social or environmental purposes of the English portion of the dormant assets funding, as the hon. Member for—[Interruption.]—as the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) pointed out. Sorry, this is what happens when Members change constituencies. We do not have the flexibility in England that they have in the devolved Administrations, and that is something we would like to correct, as my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) mentioned.
The Government plan to launch a consultation that will last for 12 weeks after the Bill receives Royal Assent and clause 29 is commenced. We anticipate that summer 2020 is the earliest that that will be possible. The consultation will enable the public to have their say on how the impact of the scheme can continue to be felt by the people and communities who need it most. We are committed to ensuring that the process is broad and inclusive.
As the consultation is dependent on the Bill passing with the measure included, it is too early to speculate on the causes that may be included, and I would not want to pre-empt the conclusions of the recommendations. As we have heard this evening, however, many suggestions are being put forward by hon. Members in this place and the other place about vehicles or future causes that could be included, and we are certainly open to hearing them.
We are not opposed to considering, for example, community wealth funds, as articulated by several hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) mentioned alternative measures involving mutuals and credit unions. My hon. Friend  the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Gareth Davies) mentioned alternative measures too. We will consider them all in the consultation.
As outlined by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury in his opening remarks, the Bill is designed to ensure that we continue to have the core principles in mind, such as additionality, as raised by several hon. Members. It is important that that underpins the success of the scheme, as it has for the last decade. The 2008 Act describes additionality as
“the principle that dormant account money should be used to fund projects, or aspects of projects, for which funds would be unlikely to be made available by…a Government department”
or devolved Administration. I reassure hon. Members that that principle will remain, which will ensure that funding is directed to causes that fulfil the scheme’s objectives while being additional to central or devolved Government funds.
I reassure the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) and others that that means that the Government do not have direct access to dormant asset funding and cannot influence it. The money must go to the appropriate causes, as defined in legislation, which have a continuing focus on social and environmental purposes, which is pivotal. As I said, several hon. Members have mentioned alternative measures and we look forward to continuing the dialogue with them about where the funding should go, but the core principles will continue to apply.
We will continue the debate in the future stages of the Bill, but I reiterate that its key purpose is to present the opportunity to significantly expand the scheme—we are talking about hundreds of millions of pounds of additional funding—while protecting participating institutions and rightful owners. We want to continue to make sure that, where possible, money goes back to those who own the funds or are rightful owners of the money.
As a result of the Bill, we hope to release hundreds of millions of pounds of additional funds for social and environmental causes across the nation. I look forward to working together to pass this important piece of legislation, so we can proceed with that expansion as soon as possible to ensure that the UK remains a world leader in deploying dormant assets at scale to society’s benefit across the country.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Dormant Assets Bill [Lords] (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Dormant Assets Bill [Lords]:
Committal
1. The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
2. Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as  not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 13 January 2022.
3. The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Consideration and Third Reading
4. Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
6. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
7. Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Steve Double.)
Question agreed to.

Dormant Assets Bill [Lords] (Money)

Queen’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Dormant Assets Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of sums required by the Treasury for the purpose of making loans to, or in respect of, an authorised reclaim fund.—(Steve Double.)
Question agreed to.

Business of the House (Today)

Ordered,
That, at this day’s sitting, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to bring to a conclusion proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg relating to the Parliamentary Partnership Assembly not later than one hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; proceedings on the motion relating to the Parliamentary Partnership Assembly may be entered upon and continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Steve Double.)

Parliamentary Partnership Assembly

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I beg to move,
That this House:
(1) notes the provision in Article 11 of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union for the establishment of a Parliamentary Partnership Assembly (PPA) consisting of Members of the European Parliament and of Members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom as a forum to exchange views on the partnership, which:
(a) may request relevant information regarding the implementation of that agreement and any supplementing agreement from the EU-UK Partnership Council, which shall then supply the Assembly with the requested information;
(b) shall be informed of the decisions and recommendations of the Partnership Council; and
(c) may make recommendations to the Partnership Council;
(2) agrees that a delegation from the UK Parliament consisting of 35 members should participate in such an Assembly; and
(3) confirms that the procedures currently applying to the nomination, support and funding of delegations to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly should apply to the delegation to the EU-UK PPA.
The motion asks the House to endorse participation in a Parliamentary Partnership Assembly with the European Parliament. Article 11 of the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement states:
“The European Parliament and the Parliament of the United Kingdom may establish a Parliamentary Partnership Assembly”—
consisting of Members of both Parliaments—
“as a forum to exchange views on the partnership.”
Since January 2021, informal discussions have been held between Members and officials in both Houses and with the European Parliament about the possible shape of such an assembly. There has been correspondence between Mr Speaker and the President of the European Parliament about the interest in mutual co-operation between both Parliaments. I would like to thank particularly my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) for his work on behalf of the House in supporting these discussions.

Robert Goodwill: Hear, hear.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I hope Hansard noted the “Hear, hear”, which I think came from my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone). [Interruption.] Oh, no, it was my right hon. Friend.

Peter Bone: And hear, hear, too!

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Indeed. I also thank the head of the Interparliamentary Relations Office, Lynn Gardner, for her assistance. Following these initial exchanges, the European Parliament confirmed its intention, on 5 October, to appoint a delegation of 35 Members to the PPA, announcing the names on 18 October. This matches the envisaged size of the UK delegation, as set out in today’s motion.
As the motion sets out, it is intended that the procedures currently applying to the nomination, support and funding of delegations to other treaty-based parliamentary assemblies—the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe Parliamentary Assembly—will apply. If both Houses agree to the participation of the UK delegation, the next step will be for the members of the UK delegation to be confirmed formally through a written ministerial statement in the same way as for the UK delegations to those assemblies. The Government expect to make this written ministerial statement shortly.
Following discussions between both Houses and others, this delegation will consist of 21 Members of this House and 14 noble Lords, and it will respect the party balances, with Members from the party of Government having the majority on the delegation, including six noble Lords.

Claire Hanna: It probably does not need saying, I suppose, that the context and the needs of the people and the economy of Northern Ireland will continue to loom fairly large as this relationship evolves. There is precedent, from 2016, in the Brexit Select Committee, whose composition ensured that it accommodated a range of views from Northern Ireland. Will the right hon. Member outline how the different views—indeed, the totality of views—from Northern Ireland will be represented in this partnership?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: That is obviously an important point. The composition of the delegation has not yet been confirmed, and we will have to see what names are announced in the ministerial statement, but I would make the general point that this House is able to represent the views of the whole of the United Kingdom in any delegation it sends out. That is of course very important.

Jim Shannon: Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) on the make-up of the delegation, it is important that the views of those of different traditions in Northern Ireland, both nationalist and Unionist, are incorporated and spoken of in the assembly. I think that is what the Government intend to try to do, but will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how that will take place?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: This is one United Kingdom, of which my hon. Friend—the hon. Gentleman, to be more accurate—is a great advocate. It is important to understand that Members of this House can represent the whole of the United Kingdom, otherwise we would be insisting that every delegation should have a Member from Somerset or from Yorkshire, and I can see that that would be attractive. Although I very much understand the importance of Northern Ireland, any delegation from this Parliament can represent the whole of the United Kingdom without trying to divide it up into its constituent parts.

Bill Cash: As a former member of the European Scrutiny Committee, of which I have the honour to be Chairman, the Leader of the House is fully aware of the legal and policy expertise of the Committee’s members. We have been doing this for a  long time—in my case, for 37 years on that Committee. If I may respectfully suggest so, I believe it would be wholly appropriate for representation on the UK delegation to be ensured for a reasonable number of members of the European Scrutiny Committee, who would play a very good and sensible role, as we do in COSAC—the Conference of Parliamentary Committees for Union Affairs of Parliaments of the European Union—and other committees, to ensure that we can make a major contribution to the proposed assembly.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend has played a good and sensible role in the history of this nation since he has been a Member of Parliament, and his distinction is, I think, unparalleled in the European debate, so I note what he says. He has of course written to me about this matter and people are aware of the representation that he has made.

Peter Bone: The Leader of the House is being charming, in his normal way, but the hon. Members for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) have a fair point, and the Democratic Unionist party is a substantial party in this Parliament, so why does it not automatically have a right to a place on this so-called delegation—if, I might say, it goes ahead?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend is always punctilious in not anticipating a decision of this House—or, indeed, of the other place—and he is quite right to do so. As I said, there will be 35 members—21 from this House and 14 noble Lords. The composition has not yet been announced, but of course if right hon. and hon. Members and noble Lords wish to be on the delegation, there is still time for them to apply. However, I stress the fundamental constitutional point that this is the Parliament of the United Kingdom and a delegation from it represents the whole of the United Kingdom.

Margaret Ferrier: Will the right hon. Member give way?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: How could I refuse to give way to the hon. Lady, who is so diligent in her attendance in this House? She is competing with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

Margaret Ferrier: I thank the right hon. Member for giving way. As a member of the European Scrutiny Committee and a Member representing a Scottish constituency, it is important to me that Scotland and the other devolved nations are properly represented in the make-up of the Parliamentary Partnership Assembly. The trade and co-operation agreement impacts all four nations, so will the Leader of the House ensure that all devolved legislators are involved in the decision making?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. In a delegation of 21 Members of this House, there will naturally be places for the SNP. As regards how the whole delegation will work, that will be determined by the assembly itself and whether it gives observer status to members of devolved bodies.

Robert Goodwill: Does the Leader of the House recognise that there are other ways that Members of this House can engage with the European institutions? For example,  the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs was in Brussels two weeks ago and had a very long meeting with Commissioner Šefčovič, which was very positive.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who makes a very valid point. We can ensure that we have good and friendly relations with our closest neighbours in all sorts of ways. This Parliamentary Partnership Assembly will be an important way of doing that, but the work of Select Committees, and particularly of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in this immediate context, is very important.
Article 11 of the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement gives the PPA the power, once established, to request and receive relevant information from the Partnership Council regarding the implementation of the agreement and any supplementing agreement, and to be informed of the decisions and recommendations of that council. The PPA may also make recommendations to the Partnership Council, and perhaps most importantly, it will provide a structure for the exchange of views between MEPs and Members of the two Houses.
Based on the informal discussions between institutions so far, if agreed by this House, the full PPA is likely to meet twice yearly, once in London and once in Brussels or Strasbourg. Each meeting of the PPA is expected to result in a summary report, which will be made available to all Members. [Interruption.] Bless you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am not sure whether it is normal for Hansard to report this, but, for the elucidation of the note takers, Madam Deputy Speaker sneezed.
The trade and co-operation agreement sets out a framework for our relationship with the EU. I look forward to the assembly providing a structure for the exchanges of views between our Parliaments.

Thangam Debbonaire: Well, here we are. I am glad that the Government have stopped dragging their heels and finally brought forward the motion to ratify the Parliamentary Partnership Assembly—which I will refer to as the PPA because it is too much of a tongue-twister for this time of night. However, there is still an unfortunate lack of detail. Their noble lordships referred to that before the motion was put down, and I do not feel that things are much clearer. The right hon. Gentleman gave us some information, so he will be pleased to hear that I have already ticked off a couple of my questions, but several remain. I wonder whether he can furnish me with more information.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that the assembly will meet twice yearly. Will it always meet exactly twice yearly, or is that a minimum or a maximum of twice yearly? How will the assembly be expected to report to the House, and how often? Will it be after every meeting or once a year? How will the Partnership Council and the PPA connect? He said that the PPA will be able to make recommendations to the Partnership Council. What power will the council have to pursue them? What power will this place have to scrutinise the Partnership Council’s adoption, consideration or otherwise of any recommendations?
How will the chair of the PPA be appointed? Will there be a co-chair system as there is with the Partnership Council? Will the chair be apportioned under party lines as happens with Select Committees? In particular,  may I press him on—I already mentioned this—how the PPA will report to this House? I know that the right hon. Gentleman agrees that it is important that Committees report to the House and that we have a proper system of scrutiny, so I would like more detail on how he expects that to happen.
I will pick up the points made by hon. Members about representation for Members of the devolved legislatures. The European Parliament will shape some of the laws that will apply to the people of Northern Ireland under the protocol. Whether the right hon. Gentleman and others think that is a good or bad thing, it is nevertheless a thing, so there must be some structure to enable parliamentarians in Westminster and Stormont to engage with MEPs throughout the legislative process. If there will not be any representation from the devolved legislatures —I understand that all three have written to ask for that representation—what else will be done to ensure a range of voices, views and experiences?
The right hon. Gentleman says that any of us in this place can represent the whole United Kingdom, but he must know that I could not represent Somerset as well as he—nor he Bristol. Therefore, there must be some respect for the differences of experience and knowledge brought by perspectives from around the House as well as the different party representations and backgrounds. Their lordships—as did, I think, the Institute for Government—cautioned against a narrowing of those voices when it comes to consideration of how the protocol will affect the people of Northern Ireland. That is incredibly important.

Peter Bone: The hon. Lady seems very keen on the PPA. Can she tell the House why?

Thangam Debbonaire: I am glad that the hon. Member asked me that. I am keen on it because the European Union is still our nearest neighbour and, whatever the circumstances of our parting of ways—he knows that I voted against that while he campaigned for it, but we have moved on—Brexit has happened and we must now work out how we will relate to our near-neighbours. We will have to negotiate with them over matters as diverse as climate change, the prevention of terrorism, scientific knowledge and how on earth we handle the next pandemic —if there is one. For all those things, we will need good relationships and some form of parliamentary dialogue. The Institute for Government and their lordships have said that that is critical. As it is also part of the trade and co-operation agreement, it would be a shame if we said that we will not have a formal method of dialogue.
We can have informal methods of dialogue, but, for our alliances in this modern world, with our global outlook and our new outward-facing image, which I know the hon. Member wants us to have, it is better to have some formal method of dialogue with our nearest neighbours. For example, climate change, in particular, knows no borders. On the issue of criminals who want to escape either from the United Kingdom or from the European Union, we are the nearest to each other and we need to co-operate. I hope that is helpful for him; that is why I am keen on it.
In conclusion, the PPA is a key part of maintaining the communication between Westminster and Brussels. Regardless of how we got here—and, goodness me, have we not all spent a long time getting here over the  past six years?—we are here. It is now of great importance that we get this relationship right. We have to keep our international relationships as a strong part of what we offer in this new global Britain so that our global standing is not diminished. Brexit has happened, whatever our views, and in order for this country to go from strength to strength, we have to make it work. That has to include having a good relationship with the European Union. I hope that the Leader of the House can answer at least some of my questions and, if he cannot do so now, that he will commit to our having further dialogue on this subject as soon as possible.

Oliver Heald: I will just take my mask off, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I say how I delighted I am that we have reached this point and that it is possible to have this motion before the House tonight? As my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) said, the treaty—the trade and co-operation agreement—is permissive. We do not have to set up a parliamentary assembly, but I very much hope that we will.
As for my interest in this, I was asked by the powers that be, including the Leader of the House, to lead on discussions with the House of Lords and our counterparts in the European Parliament on taking the proposals forward. I place on the record my thanks to the noble Lord Kinnoull, who has been leading for the Lords on this matter, for all his help in the discussions. I am glad that we managed to reach agreement so easily across the two Houses about the overall composition of the delegation in terms of the party balance and numbers, including between the Houses, so that this is a parliamentary delegation—albeit with a Commons majority, as this place would expect.
I started work on this project some time ago with an expectation that we might even be able to hold an inaugural meeting of the assembly before the summer recess. Unfortunately, however, sitting patterns in the European Parliament and our own, and internal processes that have to be gone through with so many groups in the European Parliament and parties here, meant that it was only in October that the European Parliament decided that it would establish a delegation and published the names. This is still awaiting ratification, so passing this motion tonight, followed by the motion in the Lords, will allow us to move forward so that we are ready once the European Parliament has completed its processes, which I believe is likely to happen on 12 December.
In some ways, it is disappointing that this has taken us such a long time, but that has enabled me and Lord Kinnoull to have useful discussions with Select Committee Chairs, in particular—I have appeared at the European Scrutiny Committee and the Liaison Committee to discuss how we might take this forward. The good work done by those Committees can feed into the work of the UK delegation and the UK delegation can feed back to the House and Committees on proceedings in the PPA. I look forward to seeing that develop further.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) is in his place, I make it clear that neither the PPA nor the delegation to it will duplicate  the work of any existing Committee of the House or existing delegations—for example, that to the Council of Europe. That is very much the view of the European Parliament’s Committees, too.
The role of the assembly is to exchange views on the partnership between the EU and the UK. It has powers to request information and to make recommendations to the partnership council, but it will meet probably twice a year, which is what happens with other similar bodies that the European Parliament has with other countries. It cannot be expected to do anything like the detailed scrutiny done by our specialised Committees here in Parliament.
I hope that Select Committee members will use the assembly as a platform to share their expertise more widely. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stone that the European Scrutiny Committee has a lot of expertise to offer, although of course the exact composition of the delegation will be a matter for the usual channels.

Peter Bone: I am sorry to spring out of my seat once more, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I thought that this assembly was a parliamentary delegation, not one whose membership the Government Whips would decide. Surely that is not the way forward.

Oliver Heald: As my hon. Friend may know, there are a number of assemblies—the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, the OSCE and so on—that follow a similar pattern whereby a written ministerial statement appoints the membership. However, I believe that the usual channels are very keen that the assembly should have geographical range and should take account of balance, equalities and so on. Personally, I think that if we wanted to go for something different, we would have to change the whole system that we operate in this Parliament for assemblies.

Robert Goodwill: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if we used the way that Select Committees select people, we could end up with no member from Northern Ireland, for example? That would not be acceptable, in my view.

Oliver Heald: I certainly hope that our approach will mean that we have a very good range of geography, equalities and so on, which is difficult to achieve in any other way. The House may at some time decide to change how it sets up assemblies, but I think that that would take some time. I would like to see this assembly up and running.
The European Parliament’s other bilateral bodies normally meet over an afternoon and a morning, say, or possibly over a slightly longer period. It is customary for them to open with a state-of-play update from the co-chairs of the governance structure of the agreement in question, which in this case would mean the Partnership Council. I would expect that the assembly might hear from Vice-President Šefčovič and Lord Frost and then put questions to them; there might then be thematic debates on topical matters or discussions on emerging legislation from both sides, depending on what the delegations wanted. Plenaries often conclude with votes on resolutions, but that is not a template that has to be followed religiously.
If the House passes tonight’s motion, there will still be steps to take before the first full-scale meeting can take place. The delegation will have to be appointed, as the Leader of the House has explained and as my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough, my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill) and I have just discussed. The plenary’s practical and procedural workings will also need to be arranged. There are templates for that in other bilateral bodies of the European Parliament and we have some ideas of our own, but we expect to have a pattern of perhaps two meetings a year and to be able to reach agreement on how the body will work.
Lord Kinnoull and I have already had discussions with the devolved legislatures to ensure that they are kept up to speed, ahead of the bureau that will be deciding the agendas, and that they can have input into the process so that their views are known. It has been suggested that the interparliamentary forum used for Brexit might be reconstituted for that purpose so that the three legislatures could come together and talk to us ahead of the bureau. I would like the three legislatures to have observer status so that they could be at our meetings and have informal discussions—which are as important as the formal ones—about how the plenary works, but that is something that would need to be agreed with the European Parliament.
I hope that the House will agree that today’s motion is a positive step towards building a new relationship between this Parliament and the European Parliament, following Brexit. I look forward to the UK delegation being established and beginning its work.

Philippa Whitford: I welcome the news that the Parliamentary Partnership Assembly will, hopefully, heave into view in the next few months. The aim is to create a working relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Parliament, to look at the impact of the trade and co-operation agreement, and to be able to make representations and recommendations to the Partnership Council to improve its implementation. That means that the make-up of the assembly will be critical in recognising and, indeed, trying to tackle the differentiated impact of Brexit across the four nations of the UK.
Will the Government not therefore accept the need to consider including representatives of the devolved Parliaments? We have already heard a discussion about how to secure the representation of not just one view but all the views from Northern Ireland. However, Scotland and Wales are also massively impacted by Brexit, and I welcomed the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald), who did at least consider how that inclusion could be achieved.

Oliver Heald: I certainly feel that there should be an inclusive approach, but the agreement refers to the membership of the assembly being from this Parliament and the European Parliament, so I think we would be talking about observer status.

Philippa Whitford: Perhaps when the Leader of the House sums up the debate, he will explain to us what consultation has been carried out with the devolved Parliaments—  particularly Northern Ireland, obviously, but, as I have said, Scotland and Wales have also been massively impacted by Brexit, and the impacts differ according to local economies, cultures and demographics. It is important that all those voices are gathered and represented.
The chair of the delegation will obviously be a very important figure, and, according to the documents, should be elected at the first meeting. It is vital that this is not a Government anointment of the kind that we have seen in some of the important Select Committees. We are talking about a parliamentary delegation, not an intergovernmental delegation.
A key role of the assembly will be trying to repair the relationship with our European neighbours, which is at rock bottom. The brinkmanship that we have seen over the last year, and repeated threats to the Northern Ireland protocol—a deal that the Prime Minister was quite happy to claim as his own personal breakthrough in the run-up to the 2019 election—have undermined trust. We often hear that with trust, many of the issues surrounding the protocol could be eased, but—with a German husband, and having watched German media and heard the views of Germans about what has happened here—I know that trust is now utterly absent when it comes to whether the UK will keep its word on anything in the future, which makes it likely that moving forward through the challenges of the next few years will be very difficult.
Unfortunately—particularly if meetings are only going to be six-monthly—what the assembly simply cannot replace are the myriad interactions, formal and informal, between officials, between experts, between Ministers and between Heads of State that used to happen when the UK was a member of the EU. They were able not just to influence policy but, often, to defuse tensions. It should not be forgotten that the interactions on neutral ground between John Major and Albert Reynolds made possible a relationship, indeed a warm friendship, that allowed the UK and Ireland to work together and reset the British-Irish relationship in the early 1990s.
As a Scottish MP, I will obviously be speaking up about the impact of Brexit in Scotland, which I see in my own constituency and my colleagues see throughout Scotland in all our sectors: in fishing, in farming, in the NHS, in social care and in tourism. It is important that we speak up for the majority of voters in Scotland, who frankly did not want Brexit and still do not want it. I look forward to a time when Scotland will return to the EU as a modern, independent country in its own right.

Bill Cash: I would simply like to make it clear, as has already been indicated, that the partnership assembly will not be a decision-making body, and nor is it foreseen as such by article 11 of the trade and co-operation agreement between the UK and the EU. Decisions regarding the UK’s new trading relationship with the European Union rest with the UK Government, led by Lord Frost in the trade and co-operation agreement partnership council and various specialised committees. The partnership assembly will, however, be a potentially useful forum for Members to meet Members of the European Parliament to discuss the new UK-EU trade agreement and other related issues—rather like COSAC, the Organisation for Security  and Co-operation in Europe, the Council of Europe and so forth. As I have said before, the UK may have left the European Union, but good working relations with European counterparts are important for trade and wider co-operation. I believe that the partnership assembly can contribute to stabilising UK-EU relations, and to that extent I welcome the establishment of this arrangement.
With regard to what the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) has just said about the dire consequences of Brexit, I have to say that that is a pretty average mantra these days from the remainers who persist in saying that there was somehow a level playing field before and that the EU is a democratic body of the first order. Quite frankly, I have never known a body to be described as democratic when it makes its decisions in the Council of Ministers behind closed doors by majority voting—[Interruption.] It is not. I have been a member of the European Scrutiny Committee for 37 years and I know what I am talking about, and so does the hon. Lady, because she was on that Committee with me.

Philippa Whitford: Does the hon. Member not recognise that the Cabinet makes decisions behind closed doors as well? Many Parliaments and Governments make decisions behind closed doors.

Bill Cash: There is a simple distinction between I have said and what the hon. Lady has just said, because the Government do not pass legislation but the Council of Ministers does. That is the fundamental difference. At this point, I shall resume my place, unless my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) would like to give me another lesson in constitutional law.

Stephen Hammond: Certainly not: my hon. Friend and I have disagreed about many aspects of this matter, but he was absolutely right to say that however we voted in the referendum, that is in the past. He was also right to say that this assembly could have a useful place in securing a sensible relationship between ourselves and the European Union. He and I know that we have not always agreed on this matter, but I would absolutely agree with him—

Eleanor Laing: Order. I am happy to let the hon. Gentleman finish, but he should do so briefly.

Stephen Hammond: I will finish on that point, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise.

Eleanor Laing: I call Sir William Cash.

Bill Cash: I have nothing further to say, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Alyn Smith: I will also be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker. Having been a Member of the European Parliament for 16 years, I am very glad to see progress being made on this forum. In case some Members have not heard of it, I want to introduce the concept of sincere co-operation, which is at the very heart of how  the European Governments do business in the democratically elected Council of Ministers and how the MEPs do business. They are of course individually democratically elected in the Parliaments of the European family. That is how we will engage with this, from the Scottish National party perspective. We will sincerely co-operate to find solutions, because bejesus, solutions need to be found to this. I urge all Members on both sides of the House to engage with this forum in a problem-solving, can-do spirit. It could be a useful forum to help to resolve the difficulties that we have.
The Leader of the House talked about this forum representing the whole of the UK, but then smirked at us as if to say that that would be a challenge for us on these Benches. I am a deeply proud Scottish European, and I am deeply proud of representing the SNP in Stirling within this House. I believe that Scotland’s best future is as an independent state within the European Union, rejoining the family of nations. Some people in Stirling disagree with that—although fewer and fewer, I have to say—but I represent them every bit as much as I represent those who voted for my party and who will vote for independence.
I also want to see our closest neighbour, by which I mean the UK, having the closest, friendliest and most frictionless relations with the European Union—the European Union that my party seeks to join. It is in our interest to see a co-operative assembly that engages to find solutions. It is in the interest of our wider constitutional project, but it is also in the interest of our friends and neighbours in England, Wales and, especially, Northern Ireland.
Solutions can be found and will be found, and they will be found by engaging honestly without the dogmas and ideologies of the past, by engaging honestly with the reality of how the European Union functions and by working across parties to find those solutions. We will engage specifically in that way and in that spirit.
I have a couple of concrete questions, because a lot of ground has been covered in this discussion. Six months is nowhere near frequent enough for the scale of the problems the assembly will need to address. At the very least we will need to contemplate working groups, so that we can have a plenary session as well as more specific working groups.
The role of the devolved Administrations is crucial to the credibility of the assembly, both within and outwith these islands. The perspective of all the different Members of this House is a singular prism, and surely we need to make sure that the multiplicity of views across these islands is properly respected and reflected. “Perspective” is not another way of saying “opinion.” The Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly view this stuff differently from the way that Members of this House view it, and those voices must be properly heard.
The election of the assembly’s co-chairs must be dealt with by the assembly. This is not an intergovernmental body, and it must not be a Government stitch-up. This must be an organisation that reflects with credibility the multiplicity of views across this House and across these nations, because the European Parliament certainly does. The European Parliament is putting up serious people who will look to do a serious job, and I hope the UK side will do the same.

Robert Goodwill: I join those who welcome the Parliamentary Partnership Assembly finally being set up. I was a Member of the European Parliament for five years, and indeed the deputy leader of the Conservative delegation. We fought that election under William Hague with the slogan “In Europe, but not run by Europe”. I felt slightly uncomfortable during my time there, like a difficult lodger in their House, whereas now I look forward to being a good neighbour. Neighbours should get on and resolve their problems.
For many Members of this House, the European Parliament is a complete mystery. Many people tell me it is just a talking shop, that it has no real power and that it cannot do anything. If that were the case, we would be wasting our time tonight. However, the European Parliament has very important powers, including the power of co-decision and the power to engage with the Council, with the Commission acting as a sort of go-between, in hammering out the details of legislation. In many ways, we will be in a position to see what legislation is coming forward from Europe—not legislation that we have to comply with, but legislation we will have to bear in mind as we consider what we can do to have equivalence.
I am reminded of the representation I once had from Norwegian butchers—Norway is a member of the European economic area—and their regulations were coming to them via fax. They had no opportunity to engage in how the regulations were formulated. When the European Union intended to ban carbon monoxide as a packaging gas for meat—meat packed in carbon monoxide can go rotten while still looking fresh, and they wanted to keep the meat fresh as long as possible while it was transported to the north of their country—all we could say to them was, “Well, maybe you could get some Swedish colleagues to put down some amendments.” I think we will be in a better position than many members of the EEA.
There are already some encouraging signs from the European Parliament. Members may remember the argument we had on bivalve molluscs, the classification of the waters in which they are harvested and whether they need to be purified here in the UK or could be purified, as had happened before, in France. In fact, the chairman of the European Parliament Committee on Fisheries, Pierre Karleskind, was very much on our side. He thought it was ridiculous that mussels and other bivalve molluscs imported into the European Union from the UK should have any change to their regulation given that nobody had been poisoned—or at least very few people had been poisoned.
There are encouraging signs that the Parliamentary Partnership Assembly will be a workshop in which we can hammer out some of our problems and where we can see things coming towards us on the horizon. As I mentioned earlier, I was in the European Parliament two weeks ago. I met Barry Andrews MEP and David McAllister, who I hope will be on this particular assembly. We were talking about what the limitations of the assembly would be, and my view was, “Let’s just push the margins until somebody tells us to stop.”
I think we can engage on a whole variety of issues. In the future, we will have to look at things such as gene editing, where the UK is moving forward with legislation to have more of it, so we can still trade with the  European Union. There are things such as the equivalence rules, as we sign trade deals around the world, to assure the EU that the rules in Australia, New Zealand or the United States, while maybe not being the same rules they have in Europe, have equivalent protections and safeguards.
Furthermore, as my friends across the way from Northern Ireland, the hon. Members for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), have alluded to, the protocol is the big issue on the agenda at the moment, and we must ensure we can make that work. Indeed, today the European Commission announced €920.4 million for the Republic of Ireland to help with Brexit, so they are having problems south of the border just as we are north of the border.
I very much look forward to the assembly’s being set up, and I think it will be a great opportunity to engage with our friends across the channel and build good relationships. The main plenaries may only be every six months, but I am sure we will be able to build on those contacts and friendships to ensure that we can be more on top of things on a day-to-day basis as we move forward.

Liz Saville-Roberts: Diolch yn fawr iawn, Dirprwy Lefarydd. I will speak briefly, because I have a very simple point to make, and I would like to hear the response of the Leader of the House. It will be about Wales, of course—I am sure that is no surprise. There are two points I would like to make in relation to Wales, touching on what the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) mentioned earlier.
We know the value of Welsh exports to EU countries fell by 27.5% last year, a loss of £3 billion. It was the largest decrease of all the UK regions and nations. Meanwhile, Stena Line has said that trade is down 30% in the ports that connect Wales and Ireland. If, as appears to be the case, representatives of the devolved Parliaments are to be excluded from this assembly—we tabled that as a written parliamentary question, and we were told that that they would be excluded—there is one fundamental question I must ask. I believe I am the only representative of a constituency in Wales here in the Chamber this evening. How will the Government ensure that Wales has a strong voice to defend our interests? Will the Leader of the House therefore be able to tell me how many seats Welsh MPs will hold on this assembly?
The matter of geography is extremely important. Yes, Members of Parliament can speak for other areas within the United Kingdom, but I can see a situation where there will be no representative from Wales, and that to me is wrong. In addition, how will the diversity of Wales’s interests be represented on this assembly? Fundamentally, that geographical question matters now, because it will set a precedent for the future, and if the precedent is set wrong in the here and now, it will reflect on the democracy in an organisation and an arrangement we all hope will be successful.

Peter Bone: It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), who made her point very clearly to the Leader of the House.
When I came into this debate, I was not sure of my view on the whole issue of the PPA. Having listened to the debate, I am absolutely certain that I am against it, and I have a number of reservations that I would like to draw to the attention of the House before it divides.
When a new thing starts, it is a good idea to see who is in favour of it. We know Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition are very much in favour of it—the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) spoke with passion about it, and she also spoke with passion about the fact that she was against leaving the EU. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) spoke with eloquence, as usual, and made it clear that in fact the SNP would be campaigning to go back into the European Union.
I thought, “Well, they’re in favour, and that’s not a good thing for a Conservative, so perhaps I’d better look in the European Parliament and see how they voted on this matter.” I think the vote was on around 5 October: 686 MEPs voted for it, with two against and four abstentions. I hope if I had been in the European Parliament, I would have been one of those who voted against.
I am very much in favour of scrutiny, but I am in favour of this House’s scrutiny of the Government, not of sharing that scrutiny with another body. One reason why people voted to leave the European Union was to rid ourselves of the involvement of the European Parliament. The Leader of the House may say to me that I do not have to fear that because there are only 35 of them and there are 35 of us, but we now know that the membership of the assembly will be decided broadly on a party political basis in proportion to the numbers in this House. That would automatically give the European Union a majority in the assembly, because Labour Members and SNP Members would undoubtedly take the side of the European Union.

Alyn Smith: That is outrageous.

Peter Bone: Well, it is outrageous that the SNP supports the European Union. That is the first time I have ever heard that. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Gentleman want to intervene? He seems excited on this point.

Alyn Smith: I am really quite offended on this point, actually, although I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to joust on it. The idea that I would vote for anything other than the interests of the people of Scotland and the interests of the United Kingdom in the interests of the European Union is entirely wrong. I hope that my speech was a suitably balanced contribution that said that we will try to find solutions for the whole of the UK. We have our constitutional position and constitutional priorities. I was elected in Stirling with 51% of the vote, having stood on a pro-EU, anti-Brexit, pro-independence platform—and I won the seat from the Conservatives, I have to say. The United Kingdom is not one place; it is a series of lots of places. Those voices need to be properly reflected and allegations of bad faith are really not conducive to this debate.

Peter Bone: Goodness me! There was no bad faith: I was just trying to support the SNP in its campaign to support the European Union and get back into it. That is why I say there would be a majority for the European  Union in the assembly. If it is just a talking shop, I suppose it does not really matter, but then if it is, why are we setting it up?

Robert Goodwill: I think my hon. Friend is misunderstanding how UK parties worked together, even in the European Parliament—for example, if there was a national interest, they would vote together. I see the assembly working, when we have a joint problem, on how we are going to fix it together. A number of problems will need to be fixed both now and in the future and it will help to have lines of communication. It will not be like some debating chamber, like Prime Minister’s questions; it will be a serious tool that we can use to fix things.

Peter Bone: My right hon. Friend makes a vital point, but I would take things down a slightly different path. I would re-establish the Committee on the Future Relationship with the European Union, which was a Committee of this House and could scrutinise our relationship with the European Union. It would have no MEPs on it and would be a Committee of this House. I think Lord Frost is doing a tremendous job, but it is right that a Committee in this House should scrutinise that job, not a committee made up with Members of the European Parliament.

Oliver Heald: Of course, the European Parliament has set up a number of bilateral organisations with other countries. Some of them have arrangements whereby both delegations have to agree before a resolution can be passed. There is a vote of the whole body, but equally the support of both delegations is required; would my hon. Friend perhaps find that a helpful mitigation?

Peter Bone: That would be a most helpful mitigation but, of course, if we do not have the assembly in the first place, we do not have to worry about that sort of thing.
Let me move away slightly from the principle and go back to the motion—

Bill Cash: Just before my hon. Friend moves away from the principle, will he give way?

Peter Bone: Of course.

Bill Cash: I noticed that my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill) mentioned fixing things just now. I have to say that fixing something gets very close to the idea of making a decision and, as I said in my few remarks, the assembly is not a decision-making body. Any attempt to usurp the processes that have been identified by agreement and to turn it into a decision-making body would be extremely unwise, because what we can agree to do by agreement we can agree to undo.

Peter Bone: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. That was one of the things that concerned me. I picked up from the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill) that his view was that this assembly should push the boundaries, but I thought that that was what we had stopped when we left the European Union. We do not want that sort of dialogue. Scrutiny in this House is absolutely right, and I would absolutely welcome a  Select Committee, but I do not want a committee of Members of the European Parliament interfering in the sovereign business of the United Kingdom. It is not as if we have to create this assembly. Under article 11, it is the possibility of doing it. We should all reject this in the Division Lobby. I am absolutely certain that the British people do not want to see this. Either this is something that is dangerous or something that is a total waste of money.
The final thing that made me decide that this was a bad motion was the statement that the make-up of this parliamentary body will be decided by the usual channels—the usual channels are the Whips. Goodness me, I am a moderniser. Why cannot we have democracy? Why cannot these delegations be elected like we elect Members to Select Committees? If the House decides that it does want this assembly, we should not allow the Whips to appoint who is on it. There was talk of course, quite rightly, of how the chairman of our delegation or our assembly members is to be established. I have my fears that, if the usual channels get involved, the vote will be fixed. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) mentioned the Council of Europe. I remember a former Speaker having a battle with the Government over this, trying to establish that it was this House that appointed the members, and that they should not be removed because the Government wanted that to happen over some argument relating to Brexit.
There are a whole number of reasons why we should reject the principle of this and also the way that it has been set up, so I hope that the House will not approve it tonight.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: May I thank everyone for participating in this debate? I will try to answer as many of the questions as possible.
The hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), the shadow Leader of the House, asked for some of the detail Some of how it operates will be a matter for the PPA itself to determine. In terms of how it reports to this House, it is expected that it would make a report after every plenary session and that the chairman would then be able to report to this House in the way that Select Committee Chairmen do by asking the Backbench Business Committee for time on a Thursday to make a report or, indeed, to ask for a debate.
On the PPA’s relationship with the partnership council, that is fundamental: it will be able to seek information from, and make representations to, the principal structure, and the principal structure is the partnership council, under the agreement that we have with the European Union. I think that answers the key parts of the hon. Lady’s question. I accept that some of the detail is yet to be determined because it will be dependent on decisions that are made by the PPA itself.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) mentioned the issue of observer status. He quite rightly said that that would be a matter for the PPA to determine for itself. None the less, that would be a way of including representatives of devolved Parliaments. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) questioned this as well. The issue is that, under article 11, it is a partnership arrangement between the Parliament of the United  Kingdom and the Parliament of the European Union. Obviously, both those Parliaments have Parliaments within them—the Parliaments of the member states and the Parliaments of Scotland, Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly and that is therefore going to be an arrangement between the PPA.
The speech of the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) was extremely helpful—I am sorry if I smirked—because Members from all parties are part of delegations that represent the United Kingdom, and that includes the SNP. I thought that his contribution was genuinely helpful and positive. I note that he thinks that six months is not enough, but that would again be a matter for the PPA. He raised the question of devolved Parliaments, as did the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire. This is sometimes a much more sensitive issue within the European Union and the member states of the European Union than the settled devolved settlement that we have in this country. It is therefore not entirely in our hands, but I greatly appreciate the positive spirit with which he wishes to put his views forward. I am rather more grateful to him for not re-running the Brexit debate than I am to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire, who did seem to want to run the Brexit debate all over again.

Alyn Smith: There will be plenty of other chances.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: No doubt.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill) said, this is absolutely going to be a positive partnership. He is right to say that matters could be discussed informally that may lead to positive solutions, that having such dialogue will be beneficial, and that there will be contact beyond the plenaries.
The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) asked about membership. There will be 21 Members from the Commons and 14 from the Lords. Twelve will be Conservative MPs, seven Labour and two from other parties, but there will also be 12 substitutes—eight from the Commons and four from the Lords—which will be five Conservatives, two Labour and one other. It will up to the parties to decide which part of the United Kingdom those Members come from, but I reiterate that delegations are able to represent the whole United Kingdom.
I am afraid that my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) has missed the point. His point against the hon. Member for Stirling was unfair, because the delegations have to agree as individual delegations. Therefore, even if it were the case that people were going to vote the way that the European Union told them, which I think is extremely unlikely, if the UK delegation and the majority of Conservative Members on it did not agree to that, that could not be the decision of the PPA; so that point was wrong. There are benefits, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) pointed out, to a non-decision-making body.

Liz Saville-Roberts: Would substitute Members have voting rights?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: As I understand it, when they were active as a substitute, they would have a voting right as a substitute to ensure that the delegations are properly attended, but there would not be double voting rights, if the hon. Lady sees what I mean.
This is a fair and friendly proposal that will work by improving our overall relationships with our nearest neighbour, which is a good thing to do, even if one is as staunch a Eurosceptic as I am, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone—the doyen of Eurosceptics—is.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House:
(1) notes the provision in Article 11 of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union for the establishment of a Parliamentary Partnership Assembly (PPA) consisting of Members of the European Parliament and of Members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom as a forum to exchange views on the partnership, which:
(a) may request relevant information regarding the implementation of that agreement and any supplementing agreement from the EU-UK Partnership Council, which shall then supply the Assembly with the requested information;
(b) shall be informed of the decisions and recommendations of the Partnership Council; and
(c) may make recommendations to the Partnership Council;
(2) agrees that a delegation from the UK Parliament consisting of 35 members should participate in such an Assembly; and
(3) confirms that the procedures currently applying to the nomination, support and funding of delegations to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly should apply to the delegation to the EU-UK PPA.

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Financial Services

That the draft Financial Services Act 2021 (Prudential Regulation of Credit Institutions and Investment Firms) (Consequential Amendments and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 28 October, be approved.

Constitutional Law

That the draft Age of Criminal Responsibility (Scotland) Act 2019 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2021, which was laid before this House on 18 October, be approved.—(Gareth Johnson.)
Question agreed to.

UN International Day of Persons with Disabilities

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Gareth Johnson.)

Lisa Cameron: As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for disability, I am delighted to take this opportunity formally to mark United Nations International Day of Persons with Disabilities here in the House of Commons. This is an annual day that seeks to promote the rights and wellbeing of persons with disabilities at every level of society, and to raise awareness of their wellbeing in all aspects of political, social, economic and cultural life.

Margaret Ferrier: Next year marks the 150th anniversary of the legislation that gave the right to vote in secret, but this is not the reality for many blind and partially sighted people. Does the hon. Lady agree that not only must this right be protected but work must be undertaken to ensure that there are practical options in place at all polling stations across the UK?

Lisa Cameron: I absolutely do agree that those rights should be enshrined and that the democratic process should be open to all.

Philippa Whitford: Does my hon. Friend recognise that if we want people to vote, we want more people with disability in this House? Does she agree that it is a shame that none of the learning from the covid pandemic that might have made working here more flexible for someone with a disability or chronic illness has been kept?

Lisa Cameron: I thank my hon. Friend. That is extremely important and I will move on to speak about many of those issues. We should continually be learning and applying best practice. It is extremely important that measures are taken to improve representation in this House for people with disabilities.
There are 14.1 million people with disabilities in the United Kingdom—one in five people—yet despite making up one of the largest minorities, disability often fails to reach the top of the equality agenda.

Jim Shannon: I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this forward; it is something of great interest to us all. Does she agree that watching the Paralympics has reminded us of the superior ability that so many of our disabled people possess and that their contribution to our society should be highlighted and praised not simply on this day but every day?

Lisa Cameron: I totally agree. That is an excellent point well made. The Paralympics has shown people that those with disabilities have absolutely specialist skills and abilities that shine through. My one caveat would be that having spoken to Tanni Grey-Thompson in the House of Lords just the other week, I know that many people with disabilities now feel that one of their only options in life for employment is to become a Paralympian.  While we all hope that people can achieve their full potential, not everyone can be a Paralympian, or an Olympian, so we must create other opportunities for employment for people with disabilities so that they have opportunities in everyday life.
Over the past 18 months, in my position as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on disability, I have heard from thousands of people with disabilities who have largely felt invisible and forgotten during the pandemic. I have therefore been determined to elevate the prominence of people with disability across Parliament, having most recently tabled early-day motions 607 and 621 respectively commemorating UK Disability History Month and the International Day of People with Disabilities. I commend all Members of the House to sign these as a mark of recognition that, as has been mentioned, people with disabilities play a vital role in our society at every level.

Debbie Abrahams: I congratulate the hon. Lady on this debate and on her stamina in making her speech at this time of night. Is she as concerned as I am that we are reflecting not just on the International Day of People with Disabilities but on getting out of covid? Unfortunately, disabled people were disproportionately affected in terms of covid deaths; they represented six out of 10 covid deaths. One of the themes of this year’s International Day of People with Disabilities is leadership. If we are going to address the inequalities that have driven the disproportionate death toll on disabled people, we will all have a role, within this place and outside, in ensuring that we do not see that in the future.

Lisa Cameron: Absolutely. That was a fantastic intervention and well worth hearing by all, because it is so important that we take lessons from this pandemic and make sure that people with disabilities never again feel invisible, forgotten or that they are at the back of the queue in terms of service delivery. We all have a duty to work collectively to ensure that best practice is put in place across the UK. I take the opportunity today to raise awareness and offer suggestions to Government on what I hope will be at the forefront of their mind as they consider the implementation of the crucial national disability strategy.
First, I highlight the priorities of the all-party parliamentary group in getting people with disabilities equal representation in politics and our political discourse. This year’s theme, as we have heard, is, “Leadership and participation of persons with disabilities towards an inclusive, accessible and sustainable post covid-19 world”. In line with that aim, the all-party parliamentary group has been championing social mobility and access to political mentorship. We have worked with Government and the Department for Work and Pensions to host disability-confident workshops in this House, which resulted in more than 100 of my cross-party colleagues participating and pledging to offer a variety of work experience and internship opportunities to people with disabilities in their constituencies up and down this United Kingdom. That is fantastic, and I hope to follow that up with an additional session early next year.
We have about 24% of the House participating, but we will not stop until 100% of MPs are offering people with disabilities opportunities for work experience in their offices. I request that the Minister champion this type of inclusion across the Cabinet and with colleagues,  as this initiative is entirely cross-party. It is an endeavour to ensure that no matter their background, everyone in the UK can have the opportunity to meet their full potential. We have continued to keep diversity and politics central to our work in the all-party parliamentary group and have also launched an inquiry into access to elected office, and I will be presenting its recommendations in this Chamber in 2022.
In the past two years, we have had 17 meetings of the all-party parliamentary group, focusing on a disability-inclusive covid-19 response. Members have tabled more than 200 written questions and 400 oral questions on disability issues. We now have a membership of more than 200 MPs, making it one of the largest all-party parliamentary groups in Parliament. I encourage MPs who are not yet members to join us, but I would like the Minister to note how important working on disability issues is for people across the House and across the UK at large.
The inequalities that people with disabilities face in everyday life have been exacerbated during this pandemic. While covid has affected us all, it has had a disproportionate impact on the lives of people with disabilities. The Office for National Statistics estimated that disabled people made up a staggering 59% of all coronavirus deaths during the peak of the pandemic. Research from Sense shows that nearly three quarters of disabled people believe their needs have been ignored and they have not received enough support. Furthermore, nearly two thirds of disabled people have said their mental health has worsened, showing that we need a holistic approach. We need not only a focus on physical health, but an approach that deals with mental health and wellbeing needs.
Sense has launched a petition alongside our APPG calling on Government to ensure that disabled people are a key focus of next year’s pandemic inquiry. The petition has already gained more than 26,000 signatures. Echoing that, I would like the Minister and the Government to ensure that the panel leading the inquiry is representative of people with disabilities and looks closely at the issues involved.
With almost three quarters of disabled people feeling as if their needs have been forgotten, it is vital that they are central to our recovery strategy. People with disabilities should never have to experience the lack of information and the loss of everyday practical, health and social support, as they have seen during this pandemic. Only last week, I met with local parents in my constituency who are still awaiting day services to resume after such a long time, and I heard about the negative impact on young people’s wellbeing, who are becoming introverted, losing confidence, becoming depressed and experiencing cognitive decline. I am heartened that local authorities will look afresh at the issue and we will closely monitor that to ensure it is addressed satisfactorily.
Economic research by Scope and the Disabled Children’s Partnership shows that the experience is widespread. There remains a £2.1-billion funding gap in disabled children’s health and care. That has led to an entirely unacceptable contrast between the quality of life and opportunities available to disabled children and their families compared with those without disabilities.
Freedom of information requests by the Disabled Children’s Partnership reveal that NHS trusts are struggling to meet targets for therapy appointments. Many local authorities have cut respite care and are struggling to  meet targets for education, health and care plan assessments, which leaves many children unable to access diagnosis and vital services. As a result, nearly three quarters of disabled children surveyed saw their progress in managing their conditions regress during the pandemic.
Remedying the disability health and care gap is crucial in our post-covid inclusive society. I request that the Minister addresses that urgently. Much has been said lately about social care, but little has been said about the social care requirements of children and adults with disabilities, who have been largely missing from the conversation.
On employment, people with disabilities have the right to expect the same access to financial security and career satisfaction as those without disabilities. If we are to champion leadership and participation, access to work must be prioritised. In the UK, as in other countries around the world, people with disabilities face significant barriers to accessing and staying in employment. The starkest evidence of that disadvantage is the disability employment gap, which remains shockingly high at more than 28%.
Disabled people in employment also face a stark pay gap of 19.6%, which shows that equality is far from being reached. It is clear that the Minister must take urgent action to enable people with disabilities, particularly young disabled people, to emerge into the labour market for the first time. Will the Minister consider a programme similar to the kickstart scheme that could address some of those issues, and discuss it with Cabinet colleagues?
Not enough of the Government’s attention has been on the demand side, from the point of view of what the Government can and should do to encourage employers to ensure that their workplaces are properly accessible to disabled people, and that the barriers disabled people face are identified and removed. With that in mind, the all-party group, in collaboration with stakeholders such as Disability@Work, had several meetings with the former Minister for Disabled People and officials from the Cabinet Office Disability Unit and the Department for Work and Pensions. We outlined a package of proposals aimed at encouraging employers to engage more fully with the disability employment agenda. I would value a follow-up meeting now that we can meet in person again.
Last week, I was delighted to visit Coca-Cola in my constituency to mark International Day of Persons with Disabilities and to encourage its steps towards disability inclusion in its workforce. It is one of the valuable 500 pledge signatories—companies that are prioritising inclusion and leading the way.
It is fundamentally wrong that disabled adults who are unable to work, including more than 600,000 who are not expected to look for work because of their illness or disability, are left out from the announced universal credit support. That widens the equality gap for those who are most disabled and vulnerable across our society. The Government must look at that and support people into work. They should also support those who cannot work and ensure that they are not further disadvantaged.
I also ask that the Minister looks at supporting the entrepreneurship of people with disabilities. Too often in this House, debates about disability are about the Department for Work and Pensions, but they should  be about all the Departments equally, including the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. It should be about people harnessing their skills. People with disabilities should be able to be employers and should have the support to overcome the financial barriers to doing so. They should be able to start their own businesses, employ others and mentor others into work.
It is the International Day of Persons with Disabilities, and I would like to conclude by asking the Minister to ensure that the work of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has disability equality at its core, and that while we support girls into school, which is extremely valuable, we also support girls and boys with disabilities internationally, via our UK aid, to enter and complete education and employment.
It is staggering that just 1% of women with disabilities across the world are literate. It is essential that education programmes fully include girls with disabilities in developing countries and provide effective, targeted support to address the barriers they face and enable them to thrive and fulfil their potential. Globally, an estimated 33 million children with disabilities are not in school, and children with disabilities are two and a half times more likely than other children never to attend school in their lifetime. The barriers they face can include schools not being accessible, teachers not being trained to properly support students with disabilities, and a lack of assistive technology and rehabilitation.
Everyone across the UK believes that aid should reach the most vulnerable, and a focus on children and adults with disability worldwide is a focus that we can all agree on. I urge the Minister to ensure that this remains core, and is expanded across our programmes. I pay absolute tribute to staff in the Department in East Kilbride in my constituency for their fantastic, innovative disability inclusion work.
In summary, as we join together here to mark the International Day of Persons with Disabilities in Parliament, we have the opportunity to include disabled people at the forefront of policy and policy making. No longer should disabled people feel forgotten, no longer should their needs be at the back of the queue, no longer should they be hit with the brunt of the pandemic and no longer should their services be depleted. In the summer of 2020, the Prime Minister responded to my open letter on a disability-inclusive response to the pandemic by pledging an “ambitious and transformative” national strategy for disabled people. The strategy, though broad, has a long way to go to live up to this ambitious and transformative approach. It is vital that the Minister harnesses the motivation of this Parliament, the cross-party colleagues who want to contribute, the all-party parliamentary groups and the Government to ensure that the United Kingdom is a leader in disability inclusion, and that the opportunity and ability to meet and fulfil potential is extended to all.

Chloe Smith: I am delighted to join you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) in speaking in this debate to celebrate the United Nations International Day of Persons with Disabilities. Can I start by thanking the hon. Lady for all her work leading the APPG on disability and the work of other hon. Members in that group?
The theme for this year’s International Day of Persons with Disabilities is leadership and participation towards an inclusive, accessible and sustainable post-covid-19 world. We have all seen the challenges that covid-19 has brought, especially for disabled people. It is a timely and important theme, and we aim to step up our efforts to build back better and fairer for a society that is truly inclusive of all of our citizens.
We are committed to improving disabled people’s everyday lives. That is why, in July, we published the national disability strategy, and our long-term vision is to transform disabled people’s lives. The strategy aims for both a positive vision for long-term societal change and also a practical plan for action now. I welcome the hon. Lady’s argument, which is quite right, that this needs to be broad. That is why the strategy sets out probably the widest-ranging set of practical actions to improve the lives of disabled people ever to be developed by Government—across jobs, housing, transport, education, shopping, culture, justice, public services and so much more. Commitments come from every part of Government, and will be delivered and held to account by ministerial champions in every part of Government. That is all in the service of opening up opportunities and breaking down barriers. Everybody should be able to participate fully whoever they are, wherever they live and, importantly, whether or not they have a disability.
One of my top priorities, therefore, is to deliver on that plan, and we are making good progress. For example, in September the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy launched a consultation on making flexible working the default in Britain; the Department of Health and Social Care has trials well under way to test new training on autism and learning disability; the Cabinet Office is creating a taskforce of disabled people’s user-led organisations to improve such organisations’ access to Government contracts; and the Department for Education is investing a further £300 million this year to create more school places for children and young people with special educational needs and disability—and there is so much more.
Attitudes towards disabled people and disability are changing, but we know that there is far more to do there as well, so we will develop a UK-wide campaign to increase public awareness and understanding of disability, to dispel stereotypes and to promote the diverse contributions that disabled people have made, and continue to make, to public life. Of course, disabled people fundamentally have the same wants and needs as anyone else: to access public services, to travel, to shop, to enjoy leisure, to meet friends and family, to work, to learn, to develop—to have full and fulfilling lives. I will add at this point that the Government are committed to reforming health and social care, and in a way that works for people with disabilities. Our recently published White Paper is a bold step in delivering our vision for a reformed adult social care system that is fit for the future.
Further advancing the rights of disabled people is as important now as it has ever been. We have heard from disabled people that there is so much more to be done, and we fully agree. The Government are committed to supporting a long-term movement for change on disability inclusion, as reflected in our national disability strategy, in the UK and through our international influencing and programmes around the world. I was glad that the  hon. Lady remarked on the great work done by many of her constituents. I thank her for those points, which I endorse.
We remain fully committed to the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, which the UK ratified in 2009. That treaty promotes and protects the full enjoyment of human rights by disabled people. The central elements of our strategy complement those of the UNCRPD and focus on the issues that disabled people say affect them the most in all aspects of life. Indeed, our strategy was informed by the voices of more than 14,000 disabled people and carers who answered the UK disability survey, as well as the many disabled people’s organisations and charities that shared their experiences and issues.
It is an absolute priority for me to listen directly to the voices of disabled people, too. I intend that to include using our regional stakeholder networks across the country, which include disabled people, disabled people’s organisations, parents and carers, and working with disability charities and those businesses that are leading the way on disability issues, such as through Disability Confident.
Last Friday, to mark the International Day of Persons with Disabilities, I had the great privilege of hosting a group of disabled people and others at No. 10 to hear about their challenges and successes. We discussed participation in politics and public life, and I welcome the hon. Lady’s points on that theme. We are fulfilling our promise to review the way in which the UK Government engage with disabled people, again in discussion with disabled people and organisations and charities. I think that will, in turn, continuously make our work better and fairer.
I want to say a word more about the pandemic, on which the hon. Lady raised very important points. Since the start of the pandemic, the Government have worked hard to ensure that disabled people have access to employment support, disability benefits, financial support, food and medicines, as well as accessible communications and guidance, during the outbreak. We continue to monitor the impact of covid-19 to ensure that the needs of disabled people are understood and to help shape the Government’s ongoing response.

Debbie Abrahams: Will the Minister give way?

Chloe Smith: Briefly.

Debbie Abrahams: I am afraid that that was just not reflected in Greater Manchester. I welcome the Minister to her place, but I think she should know that 80% of those disabled people who responded to the survey by Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People—a substantial number responded—were not eligible for support. An algorithm identified those who were eligible for support, and 80% were not, even though they had substantial disability needs.

Chloe Smith: I am sorry to hear about the experiences of the hon. Lady’s constituents and am happy to discuss that further. I am conscious of her work on the Work and Pensions Committee and know that she takes a great interest in this area, so I look forward to taking that further with her.
I turn to the points made by the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow about young people with special educational needs and disability. That is at the heart of her work, as is absolutely right. Throughout the pandemic, the Government sought to ensure that parents and carers could continue to access respite care to support them in caring for their disabled children. To support that, councils have been able to draw on more than £6 billion of unringfenced direct Government funding to help them with the immediate and longer-term impacts of covid-19 spending pressures. We have also extended access to assistive technology for that group, with investments in remote education and accessibility features that can reduce or remove barriers to learning. I hope that that will start to address some of the disproportionate impact on their learning from the pandemic. I acknowledge her suggestion about the composition of the covid-19 inquiry.
I turn to employment, on which excellent points were made. I am determined to make further headway in reducing the employment gap for disabled people, building on the progress already made. Too many people who can and want to work do not have the opportunity to do so, so the Government are looking at concrete action to help disabled people into good jobs and to progress, with a commitment to continue to break down barriers and improve support.
We have more work coming out shortly, including a consultation on workforce reporting. We are looking to encourage employers to recruit, retain and progress   their disabled employees and to be Disability Confident in doing so. I share the hon. Lady’s call for hon. Members to take part in Disability Confident in any way that they can. I also welcome the recent initiative of the disability employment charter and met just today with some of its signatories.
Coupled with our strategy, the Green Paper on health and disability that my Department published in July sets out our ambition to support and empower disabled people to achieve their full potential. Our response to the “Health is everyone’s business” consultation also ensures that better support is provided to help disabled people to start, stay and succeed in employment.
The UK has been a leading global voice on disability inclusion, having hosted the global disability summit in 2018. We have done much work in follow-up. We support interventions around the world to promote the rights and dignity of disabled people. We recognise that, at home, the Government have a leading role in the further transformation for disabled people that we must achieve. But we must do this together, so this is a call for action across society. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for calling today’s debate and pleased to work with her on this challenge.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.